Talk:Dance Dance Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dance Dance Revolution article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Portal:CVG
 CVG Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This article is supported by the Konami task force.
CVG To-do:
Dance WikiProject
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dance, which collaborates on Dance and related subjects. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Name of the game?

Could someone explain the name of the game to me? If we accept that there is something revolutionary about it, the name "Dance Revolution" might make sense, but why "Dance Dance Revolution?" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 17:32, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In Japanese, doubling of words is used in a number of places. Sometimes it is used to signify plurals of nouns ("ware" = I, myself, "wareware" = us, ourselves; "hito" = person, "hitobito" = people, the "h" sound is softened to a "b" sound in the second occurrence, but the word is written the same). Other times it is used for emphasis or simply for phonetic effect ("dokidoki", "wakuwaku"). Word doubling is so common that there is even a special character in written Japanese which only means "repeat the previous kanji", which helps make writing these constructions easier. "Dance Dance" probably originated from this stylistic technique of expression in Japanese. Personally I think it works well; "Revolution" is four syllables, much longer than "Dance", so the doubling helps restore balance to the name.
Also Konami were probably aware that most people would use an acronym, and thought "DDR" sounded better than "DR".
I've always considered it just another quirky Engrish thing. Just like some versions of the game give you text messages such as "That's was cool!" or "Are you enjoy?" --Poiuytman 13:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: recent minor change

Well, which will it be? To say that DDR USA was "panned" by players of previously imported games is correct. The recently made change, "played" by players of imports, is also true, although not terribly relevant. May I suggest "snubbed" by players of the better mixes?

I've changed this back to 'panned' although 'snubbed' would work too. Kappa 18:18, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] DDR simulators?

Currently the article features a screenshot from Stepmania, a DDR simulator made by fans. However, aren't such simulators technically illegal for copyright reasons, for the same reasons as other video game emulators? I realize that such simulators are popular nonetheless, and deserve a section, but shouldn't the screenshot be from a legit version of the game? --LostLeviathan 07:53, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Emulation is not, itself, illegal -- and DDR-compatible games are probably in much better standing than video-game emulators such as MAME. (No, I'm not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. And yes, the discussion below is U.S.-specific.)
For the basic legality of producing and distributing emulators, see Sony v. Connectix, in which Connectix was found not to have infringed on Sony's copyright by creating and selling the PlayStation emulator, Virtual Game Station. VGS lets you play PlayStation games (from the original CD-ROM) on a Macintosh. Note, it doesn't let you play them from files or from "pirate" CD-ROMs written on a computer -- only from the originals, which are recorded differently from ordinary CD-ROMs.
The fact pattern is a little different for MAME-type emulators, since they don't use original media -- they require specially made copies of the game. Emulators such as MAME require that you have a copy of the ROM of the original game. The ROM is the software program which, when run on the appropriate computer system (or emulator) is the game. Distributing these ROMs (to people who don't own the original game) is illegal under copyright law ... and I suspect the makers of MAME understand that people are using it with bootleg ROM files. That risks contributory copyright infringement.
Another thing that's true about MAME, but false about many other emulators is that it can't be used to play newly-written freeware games. MAME is hard-coded with a list of games that it supports, and they're all copyrighted commercial releases. But most emulators are not like this. SNES9x, a Super NES emulator, can play not only copies of original games but also fan-created original games. And there are actually quite a few of these out there. (This is true not only of SNES9x, but of most game-console and home-computer emulators.) What this gives SNES9x is significant noninfringing uses -- which is an affirmative defense against charges of contributory infringement. (See Sony v. Universal, the "Betamax case".)
So where does this leave StepMania? StepMania is not really an emulator in the sense of MAME or SNES9x, though it does something similar. An emulator runs a virtual machine that can run software programs written for a particular computer. StepMania is a game compatible with DDR -- that is, it uses the same input files as DDR and produces similar effects, but not by running the same software. It takes the same input files (MP3s and stepfiles), but these aren't software; they're data -- like importing a Microsoft Word document into OpenOffice. Compatibility is actually quite safe under copyright law. Indeed (not that StepMania does so) it's sometimes legal to copy parts of a work outright in the interest of producing a compatible product; see Lexmark v. Static Control.
And, like SNES9x, StepMania can be used for significant noninfringing uses. You do not have to use copies of DDR's music and stepfiles. There is a vast community of stepfile creators who produce original ones. Some of these, yes, are based on remixes of commercially released music (and so probably infringe on the copyright on that music) -- but many are not; they are original productions. These significant noninfringing uses (as well as the use by people who do own a copy of a DDR game and choose to play the music and stepfiles in StepMania instead of on a PSX) give StepMania a good set of defenses against contributory infringement. --FOo 19:05, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
WRT "emulation", "simulation", and the data formats. DDR's stepfile format is, as far as I know, a sort of trade secret and not used in Stepmania. The actual data _formats_ between DDR machines and Stepmania are actually totally incompatible. The origins of DDR simulation carried with it several different formats, of which DWI (Dance With Intensity) and SM (Stepmania) were popularized in the end. Therefore what was said about taking "the same input files and [producing] similar effects...not by running the same software" is somewhat incorrect. No stepfiles were truly copied from the machines, rather they were transcribed by third-parties. (Music is also normally ripped from the audio outputs of the machine, however, this is just as legally damning as copying from the machine anyway.) So it is even farther removed from copying or cloning DDR software than even you described. Stepmania is more a similar-style game rather than simulation even (due to it's modularity and alternate featureset), and indeed it is true that the debate is centered on how it can be used. (Which, yes, it can be used to emulate DDR gameplay.) I do agree with what you said regarding contributory infringement.
On a related note, In The Groove is derived from Stepmania and actually uses a stepfile format that is nearly 100% compatible (with minor tag changes). The legality of ITG is also as disputed as Stepmania's, however, the adaption of ITG has led to the conclusion of either A) Roxor has acquired the right to produce this and/or B) Konami does not care to take action. ITG's release seems to be one of the more significant arguments in the Stepmania infringement debate, seeing as Roxor is now marketing a Stepmania-derived product for profit. (Roxor employs much of the actual Stepmania development team, so the connection is rather strong.) --Mike Tigas 0519, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Konami's original lawsuit against Roxor failed because (a) they did not have jurisdiction in the United States (KOA's arcade division had shut down years earlier), and (b) the case fell under the "look and feel" precedent that stated that making games that "look and feel" similar to one another does not constitute copyright infringement. All of Roxor's actions in producing ITG have been legal in terms of the software itself - they didn't really acquire the right so much as have it granted to them by legal precedent.
Konami's second lawsuit targeted the "upgrade kit" that Roxor produced to upgrade existing DDR machines to ITG. The article states that this suit was settled in such a way that Konami acquired all the rights to ITG - I wasn't aware of that, but there is a citation for that one, I believe. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the image to the Simulator section and placed an image of the actual arcade game in the Gameplay section. --Poiuytman 13:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup, shortening the article.

In my opinion, the article needs major cleanup. Information seems to be scattered everywhere, and there's a lot of redundancy. I'm going to start by moving the details in "Notable songs" to individual articles (which several of the songs already have), and leaving the list as a bunch of links. Any other suggestions? --Poiuytman 13:48, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with the cleanup. IMO, "Common step patterns" and "Notable songs" could both completely leave. They sound more like game hints than an article suitable for those who do not know the machine. Also, I believe "Score/Grade" could go into the Gameplay section. --Kamek 14:40, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, "Score/Grade" could go under "Gameplay" as a subsection. "Common step patterns" should be summarized in two or three sentences, and merged with Gameplay. Most of the information there would be better suited to GameFAQs. "Notable songs" should be removed, and instead, important songs should be listed in descriptions for Releases. Speaking of which, the Releases table is ugly. I'm thinking about splitting it into "Home Releases" and "Console Releases". --Poiuytman 15:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Since Kitch has written substantial articles on the major mixes, I suggest we place the scoring systems for each mix on its respective article. All the score calculation stuff in the main DDR article could then be reduced to a broad description of the letter grades and judgments, with links to the individual mixes for more details. --Poiuytman 11:00, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the Notable songs section and moved its content to the appropriate individual mix pages. I'm planning to expand the Releases section with "Notable versions": links to the main numbered games and other selected mixes with brief notes on what they contributed to the series (a condensed version of what the old Releases table used to have). --Poiuyt Man (talk) 11:37, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
One more thing: do we really need a section for other Bemani, when there's a whole article for that? If you still think we should keep it, it could perfectly fit as a subsection of "See also". --Kamek
No, I don't think the section is necessary. Instead, it should be more prominent in the article intro that DDR is part of the Bemani series. --Poiuytman 15:09, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Putting songs in separate articles is inviting them to get put on Votes for Deletion. Kappa 22:36, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Possibly; I think it depends on the song. I think the MAX 300 article could be expanded quite a bit. If the other Notable songs information isn't enough to create articles, we can just archive it under a subpage. --Poiuytman 23:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Rewrote the text about the bar in the second paragraph. I think it's more NPOV. --Poiuytman 01:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency in capitalization, italics, quotes

This is a proposal to keep consistency across all the Dance Dance Revolution articles. The following guidelines adhere to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style where possible:

  • The game series, Dance Dance Revolution, and the individual games (such as Dance Dance Revolution 5thMIX), in italics. This includes acronyms (DDR, DDR 3rdMIX), and informal names (Club Version 1, DDR 3rd Mix), although the latter should be avoided.
    • Gamespy uses this format in their game review articles.
  • Song and course name capitalization: matches in-game capitalization. Use the song lists of the individual articles (if available) as reference. Example: "PARANOiA" as opposed to "Paranoia".
  • Song names: Double-quotes, as per the Manual of Style.
  • Grades in double-quotes. "AA", "A", "B"...
  • Step judgments, when initially referenced, should be as they appear on-screen in the game. "MARVELOUS!!!", "MARVELLOUS!!!", "PERFECT!!", "GREAT!", "GOOD", "BOO", "MISS..", "ALMOST", "O.K.", "N.G.". All further references should just have the first letter capitalized. Perfect, Great, Good, Boo, Miss, Almost, O.K., N.G.
    • This is to avoid breaking sentence flow with jarring CAPS and extraneous!!! punctuation.
  • Arrow directions: Currently lowercase — up, down, left, right, up-left, up-right. I am undecided on whether these should be capitalized or left lowercase. It could use a vote if anyone thinks it's significant enough.
  • Freeze arrows: I suggest Freeze arrow, with arrow left lowercase.

I am by no means an authoritative figure on DDR-based articles, so feel free to argue any of these guidelines.
--Poiuytman 02:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(Modifications) --Poiuyt Man (talk) 11:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Common step patterns

...has been archived under Talk:Dance_Dance_Revolution/Common_step_patterns. Some parts may be incorporated into the Gameplay section, but as it is currently written, it's more appropriate for a website such as GameFAQs. --Poiuytman 10:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Additionally, these things don't have standardized names and names for each of the patterns specified there vary a -lot- on region -- to the point where terms describing moves from region to region aren't even necessarily mutually intelligible. Putting them here and attempting to assign "official" names to these maneuvers would be a mistake. BenSamples 01:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. I was thinking that at some point a guide to techniques and arcade codes could be created on Wikibooks, since they don't belong in an encyclopedia article. --Poiuyt Man (talk) 10:02, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] attn: Kitch, titles of individual Dance Dance Revolution games

I recently went on a renaming spree for the individual Dance Dance Revolution titles, which links can be found for on the main article page under Releases. I also changed all the links and references to the titles within all the articles. Kitch, who has contributed the bulk of these articles, seemed none too happy about me screwing with "his" pages, and reverted them all to their original states. I'm hoping we can discuss this here instead of possibly starting a revert-war.

The former titles of the articles were Dance Dance Revolution 3rd Mix, 4th Mix, 5th Mix, DDRMAX: Dance Dance Revolution 6th Mix etc. I changed them to 3rdMIX, 4thMIX, 5thMIX, etc. My sources for these titles are:

  • The syntax used in the logos.
  • The names used in the categories for DDR EXTREME (check first few links on this page.
  • Konami of Japan's official DDR website, which points to pages for the individual mixes, and the title usage on each respective page.
  • EDIT: Also the home version DDR website. --Poiuytman 10:07, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is no naming scheme used in the US games for precedent; even the PS2 versions of MAX and MAX2 omit the mix numbers. It could be argued that "xst Mix" is common usage on the Internet, but that's why I didn't touch the secondary names ("DDR 3rd Mix", "DDR 4th Mix"), and made sure redirect pages were in place for the common usages. I think accuracy should be used for the article titles themselves.

Comments welcome. --Poiuytman 10:02, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, this is Kitch. I apologize for the hostility. I had just finished those pages yesterday to find the names changed only a few hours later. You know, it's not really that big of a deal. In fact, it's a double-standard on my part to want correct capitalization of song title names yet revert the game title names. Actually, I never paid attention to the game titles before yesterday.

I'm just going to leave them be. Again, I'm sorry I was upset about everything.

It's alright, I had an immediate negative reaction at first too, and started reverting them, thinking that I was absolutely right, even without doing any research on the subject. I stopped in the middle of it, and said "what am I doing?". I forgot about this. Anyway, I guess it was for the best, since I ended up actually looking the titles up instead of just going on what I remembered.
By the way, very nice work on the individual game pages. They'd probably just be stubs (or nonexistent) without your contributions. --Poiuytman 19:44, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

I just had an idea...would it be a good or bad idea to have a timeline somewhere on this or a related page? The table would summarize particular trends in the game, like the duration of foot rating names or the duration of the CD carousel or banner lineup. I just whipped up a table for it, but it's obviously not finished. Tell me what you think.

Game Dance Dance Revolution 2ndMIX 3rdMIX/3rdMIX Plus 4thMIX/4thMIX Plus 5thMIX DDRMAX DDRMAX2 EXTREME
Foot rating Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y
Named difficulty levels ("Catastrophic" et al) Y Y Y N N N N N
Groove Radar N N N N N Y Y Y
Method of music selection CD Carousel CD Carousel CD Carousel Banner lineup Music wheel Music wheel Music wheel Music wheel
Highest foot rating 8 8 9 9 9 10* 10 10
Routine category names Basic/Another/Maniac B/A/M B/A/M Basic/Trick/Maniac B/T/M Light/Standard/Heavy L/S/H L/S/H

Note: although Dance Dance Revolution MAX did not use foot ratings, the song Max 300 was later given the rating of 10 feet in Dance Dance Revolution MAX2, making DDRMAX the first DDR game with a ten-foot song.

Azure Haights 22:09, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if a complex table is the way to do this. I feel we could just reduce the current table in Releases to a list, and important changes could be written next to each game. --Poiuytman 22:39, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And the table would get convoluted when games were added that use older or completely different interfaces, such as the Solo mixes and North American releases. --Poiuytman 22:41, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Navigation template.

I added a navigational template to all the individual game articles. I'm not so great with CSS, so if you feel you can make it look better, go ahead. --Poiuytman 22:37, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DDR US 1st Mix/USA/Home, Disney Mixes.

This is mostly directed at Kitch, since he's the main contributer of the individual game pages, but the topic is open for discussion. Since the US 1st Mix and DDR USA arcade games don't have much unique content (they borrow all their songs from 1st-3rd Mix, and the interface is modified from 2nd/3rd's), I suggest they go under the same article, named Dance Dance Revolution (USA) or something similar. The US home version, Dance Dance Revolution, could also go under that article, since it's based off those two arcade versions.

The Disney mixes could also probably be condensed under one article.

I've been using The DDRUK Songlist Project lately to keep track of all the versions. It doesn't have details on every mix yet, but it's still a useful resource. --Poiuytman 09:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese DDR article

Here's a link to view a very rough translation of the Japanese Wikipedia DDR article, done using SYSTRAN.

Translated article

--Poiuytman 12:27, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

that's not a translation at all

[edit] List of DDR games

I created List of Dance Dance Revolution games, and replaced the Releases section with a link to it. This decreases the article size by about 5kb. I'm planning on adding much of the details from the old table as sub-bullets on the list. I also still need to link many of the titles on the list.

The release dates were obtained from several sources: the old Release table, the individual DDR articles, the Japanese DDR article, the KLOV, MobyGames, All Game Guide, DDRers' Stompin' Ground (with help from SysTran), and the DDRUK Songlist Project. In case of conflicting dates from different sources, I used the release date that was listed on more sites, or reduced the date accuracy (e.g. March 2001 instead of March 21, 2001).

--Poiuytman 12:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The main article on List of Dance Dance Revolution games is now less comprehensive than this one. They need to be merged again.

67.62.240.136 19:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The DDR phenomenon

I am planning to write a separate article over this topic. The influence of DDR is so wide-spread over any video game that I think it now warrants its own article. What do you think? (I am still thihking of what to be included and I need opinions. Leave a message on my talk page) SYSS Mouse 20:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if a separate article is necessary -- it depends on how long it is. I'm going to be condensing the Gameplay section and moving Notable songs to the individual mix articles, so there will be a lot more room on the main page. Moving releases to a separate page has already shortened it greatly. I think you should start by editing and replacing the current DDR phenomenon section, and work on it gradually (instead of writing it all offline and replacing the whole thing at once). If it gets too big during this process, we can move it to a separate article.
As for topics that could be covered:
  • Initial reactions and the crowd-attraction effect.
  • DDR as exercise, expanding on what's currently in the section
    • Use in physical education programs [1]
    • Positive health aspects (cardiovascular endurance, leg strength, improvement of balance, coordination, and reaction time)
    • Negative health aspects (over-exertion, joint pain, muscle spasms from not warming up, tripping and twisting ankle/breaking leg/etc., lacerations from screws when playing barefoot, detachment of soles from muscles due to extended barefoot play)
  • The gradual loss of interest in Freestyle, and shift to Perfect Attack popularity.
    • Aaron In Japan's contribution to this movement; elevation of Yasu and Take to "DDR God" status.
  • The loss of interest in Japan as Beatmania IIDX and Pop'N Music became more popular.
  • Sightings in pop culture, such as TV programs and movies (Lost in Translation, King of the Hill, Will & Grace.]
--Poiuytman 10:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm surprised there's no section on the competitive DDR scene, especially the freestyle teams. You could also talk about the local cultures that were created - I remember playing in an arcade in northern California, and my friend performed a knee drop on Butterfly. One of the local players watching us asked us after the song whether we were from southern California, because according to him, the Butterfly knee drop was a "southern California move." There was also an article in the San Francisco Examiner that mentions the different styles among players in Sunnyvale, Milpitas, and San Francisco (that way it's not just original research).
Another important topic is the impact DDR had on the market. DDR popularized rhythm games (more so than the earlier Parappa, Bust A Move, or Beatmania did), opening the market for an influx of such games or games with similar concepts; recent examples include Britney's Dance Beat and Donkey Konga.
Fadeblue 00:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
DDR's impact can probably be included somewhere in the section. However, I'm not sure about specific DDR "scenes". There isn't much concrete information to write about. The "DDR phenomemon" section as it is needs severe cleanup, and needs a better perspective (it has too many weasel terms, doesn't really have a specific topic, and is US-centric). --Poiuyt Man (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation notice.

I reverted the disambiguation notice at the page to include the links again. I don't think it's necessary to make the user navigate to the bottom of the page, when there are only two games with that title, and they can easily be listed at the top (which is the point of disambiguation, to provide quick links to the desired article). Besides, the list at the bottom (the template, I'm assuming?) doesn't even say which games are titled Dance Dance Revolution, so navigating down there doesn't really help. --Poiuytman 14:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for sample sound files

Can this be done without violating copyright? Can authorization be obtained for at least some songs? DDR is great, but it's clearly a fad, and this stuff may not be available forever -- this is a good medium for preservation. EggplantWizard 20:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Doubtful on the authorization, but fair use should cover short clips at low bitrate. Maybe we could use the clips on the Ultramix 2 site. --SPUI (talk) 17:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I doubt it will be very useful though SYSS Mouse 02:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DDR Freak re-listed on VfD

Since the DDR Freak article hasn't gained any real content since the last time it was on VfD, I re-listed it. Please go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/DDR Freak and vote. --Poiuytman 10:32, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] If "encyclopaedic content" is your aim...

Then perhaps you should consider removing the comments about the DDR Freak forums. Whatever happened to you at DDR Freak is your opinion of matters, and DDR Freak is not inherently flame-heavy. If anything, when compared against BemaniStyle, arch0wl, ITGFreak, and AIJ, DDR Freak is tame.

Whatever your opinions of DDR Freak may be, they are *irrelevant* and do not belong in a wiki.

They are not exclusively my opinions, but rather how the majority of other DDR website communites perceive DDR Freak's forums. Nevertheless, the statement is opinionated, and I have removed it. --Poiuytman 03:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Machine picture changed.

Was it necessary to replace the 4th Mix Plus picture at the top with the new one? Not to sound biased towards my own photo, but it is brighter and shows the pad clearer. It's unnecessary to have both pictures on the page, since they show similar perspectives of a DDR machine. --Poiuytman 08:02, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I put mine at the top since it shows the whole machine, and shows the original logo. --SPUI (talk) 09:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I can see the reasoning behind that. I also like that the machine still has padding on the bars, and the stickers on the pad are still intact. I've edited the picture to make it a bit brighter, and placed it back at the top of the page. 300px looks too big for me, though, at least on a 1024x768 display. --Poiuytman 20:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes in Dance Dance Revolution

Please go here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arcade games#Infoboxes in Dance Dance Revolution

[edit] Recent changes

I'm not trying to be overly possessive of my text contributions to this article, but the recent overhaul by User:DjRez has me a bit irritated. Although there are a lot of improvements, many of the changes needlessly complicate sections and add POV. Examples:

  • "DDR is often considered the most popular of Konami's. Bemani music game series."
    • Weasel statement, no source. Beatmania IIDX is currently more popular in Japan.
  • The game is typically played on a dance pad with four arrow panels, pointing in the cardinal directions: up, down, left, and right. (In addition to the NSEW arrows, versions of Dance Dance Revolution Solo have additional arrows pointing "Up-Right" and "Up-Left", approximately 45 degrees from the panel preceding it.)
    • The "typically" was placed there so Versus, Double, 3-Panel, and 6-Panel didn't have to be explained in the article introduction. Listing them in detail can be done in the Gameplay section, and a link to Dance Dance Revolution Solo can explain the diagonals.
  • In some DDR communities, players may place their coins on this lip to form a "coin line", which signals that a player is waiting for his or her turn to play. changed to "Coin lines", as they are commonly called, clearly shows the order or perspective players, as to eliminate confusion.
    • "In some DDR communities" was removed, reducing the accuracy of the statement (it is rare to see coin lines outside the United States). The sentence was also moved in the paragraph, placing it out of context.
Why was it removed, do you know about other countries, have you been to any? The coinline i used in England, Norway, Sweden, France and Italy. I think you should check up on these things before making assumptions. Havok 4 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)
I've been told by Japanese players that coin lines are strictly a Western phenomenon, and they are not used in Japan. I don't have any real references to back that up, so I wouldn't put it in the article. However, it is fairly easy to search various DDR forums for "coin line" and find that there is a minority of online DDR players that don't use it. Some areas use the less-common method of putting one's coins in the machine beforehand, to signal that the player has already paid for his/her turn. Other methods include a sign-up sheet, and not using a formal line system at all (common when just playing with friends).
The coin line is common in the U.S. (and elsewhere, as you say), but it's still a player preference. Therefore, the statement should make it clear that it's not the only way of keeping order, it's not used everywhere, and it's not used consistently with different groups of people. --Poiuyt Man talk 4 July 2005 16:40 (UTC)
  • The opening paragraph of Gameplay details has been bloated with specifics about difficulty, which belong in a separate paragraph or subsection.
  • Songs and levels was already a mess, but now has "did you know?" trivia about specific songs, which are covered in many of the specific DDR mix articles.

I was tempted to revert the article, but the changes are well-meaning, and simply need to be rearranged and rephrased in many instances. I'm glad we have an another user with a major interest in improving this article. --Poiuyt Man talk 05:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes-Response

Poiuytman, thanks for taking the time to look through my changes. You're right in saying that I meant well, but I really hadn't made a Wiki edit of this magnitude before, and I was very, very tired, making factual and grammatical mistakes.

With that being said: -IIDX/BM, while reigning as most popular in Japan, doesn't get the same treatment on the other continents. When I made the statement concerning their popularity, I included the entire world, not just Japan. -I'm still very sure that other countries use coin/marker lines.

To be fair, the previous article was missing many facts and was very choppy, making some of the information difficult to process. Other than that, I see how you're correct in saying that I bloated the article. It seems as if I just went up and started spewing all this useless knowledge, instead of correctly organizing it, which would have made the passage a lot more accessible to the reader. If I get some free time later in the weekend, maybe I'll fix it up. I was just intrigued by the DDR article (I never knew there was one, I don't go to this site often), and had some extra time on my hands. We'll see what happens.

[edit] Madona video clip

I am not 100% sure of it but it seems that the game appear behind Madona in her latest video clip. Maybe worst adding to the page?


It was definately in the video for "Hung Up" in the album "Confessions on a Dance Floor".
However, she didn't really play the game, it was more of a prop to dance around.
Mezzaninex 23:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Release dates

Are the current release dates posted correct? I see that the Japanese release date was recently changed so now the article shows that the game came out in the U.S. before it did in Japan, which I find difficult to believe. Are there any sources for these dates? --TheKoG 20:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DDR supernova

[2]

I am gathering comments on whether it should be included in the DDR game list. please comment. SYSS Mouse 04:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

previous discussions

I added Dance Dance Revolution: Super Nova to the North American section per the annoucement on DDR Freak. I put a release date of unknown since we don't know, but it's probably going to be 2006 as they're talking about location testing already. Lightdarkness 21:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not think DDR Supernova should be included in the list at this time. Based on the information that was released, the game is not sanctioned by Konami. As this article (implictly) refers to Konami DDR games, Supernova should not be included in the list at this time unless further detail is available. SYSS Mouse 03:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Quotes from the second page of the DDRFreak thread state "Konami's developing it, but Betson's distributing it", and "Betson is Konami's official American Distributor. Konami will be designing this, Betson will distribute it". This is likely true, since Konami of America shut down their North American arcade division some time ago. --Poiuyt Man talk 16:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
It seems that as of today, January 25, 2006, Konami has officially announced Dance Dance Revolution: SuperNOVA for the arcades [3]. From what the press release says, they are planning to include over 300 songs, link mode which allows players to save their stats and edit steps (a set of user-defined steps for a particular song in the game, a very popular feature within the Japanese versions of the game) to a memory device (probably either a PS2 or Xbox memory card or both seeing that there are current domestic home mixes released for those home consoles) probably using the "Edit Mode" feature inclued in the current home mixes and will be a permanent fixture in future American home mixes, and most importantly, a new graphics engine, which is only possible by a hardware upgrade.
Also, DDR Freak reports of a keynote address given today at Konami Gamers Day in San Francisco by Yoshihiko Ota, Executive Producer of Dance Dance Revolution, stating the worldwide release schedule of the arcade mix: America will get it this spring, followed by Europe, and finally Japan [4]. In other words, the arcade mix will be the same for all releases. Finally, there is also an offical website for Dance Dance Revolution: SuperNOVA which launched today. I strongly believe that this should be suffice in updating this Wiki so that it includes information on SuperNOVA.--TheLegendOfZaku0079 04:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DDR step technique mislabeled

In the section "songs and difficulty levels", the article lists the Sidestream as a type of step skill. It is a step combo such as Left-Down-Right, where the left and right steps are hit with the same foot. I have never heard of it called a 'sidestream' before in my life; I've exclusively heard people refer to this step as a 'crossover' (seeing that your foot should cross over to the opposite side of the pad if performed properly). Can any other DDR players confirm this, or is it possible that the term "crossover" is just a localized term from my reigon (northeast US)?

I agree. I have always used the terms "Crossover" (for a pattern such as RDL, alternating feet) and "Candle" (for a pattern such as ULD, alternating feet, where your foot crosses the center square), and rarely, if ever have I heard the term "Sidestream." I have changed the article to define these two terms in the stead of Sidestream, feel free to clarify my edit even further if you like! --Rahzel 16:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Popular Culture Section is Bloated

The "In Popular Culture" section of this page is getting too long. We don't have room for everyone's favorite DDR television reference, movie quote, or whatever. I think that this section either needs to be deleted entirely (under the reasoning that DDR is becoming more and more popular culture itself) or streamlined to include just a few notable pop culture references. Please reply with your thoughts. Regards, Rahzel 18:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am still awaiting thoughts on this. In the meantime, I don't think we should add any more items to this section unless they are extremely noteworthy--we don't need every single pop culture reference in this section. --Rahzel 18:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm personally a bit of an inclusionist, but as per WP:NOT I think you make a very good case for trimming it down at the very least. (In other words, If I Were King(TM) we'd keep the list -- but I'm not King, and I don't write the checks for Wikipedia, and by my interpretation of the rules, this would be an indiscriminate list of information and therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia -- so I concur and vote to trim down the list. --Jaysweet 19:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Suggestion rather than have "pop culture references", why not rewrite the entire section as prose exploring "influence on popular culutre". We seem to have enough details to warrent such a section. LinaMishima 20:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
That is a fantabulous idea. I'll do it if I have time in the next few days. --Rahzel 06:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I have sort of done this. I have re-written this section to eliminate some of the unnecessary details, and (more importantly) to get rid of the list of "pop culture references" that keeps getting more and more bloated. I think that this prose-paragraphencapsulates the main idea of what that section should be getting across, without the fanboy-isms. Rahzel 21:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, no one has done this. Is it going to happen? Over half the references have been deleted! Who picks and chooses which ones are more valid than others? --204.246.229.153 16:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"An interesting website is the popular Flash Flash Revolution. Rather than using a dance mat, the player uses the up, down, left and right controls on the keyboard. The game also gives the user the ability to control how they see the arrows, rather than just the traditional arrows at the top of the screen, they can be viewed from all sides of the field, allowing for an endless array of ways to play." This should be deleted as it is an obvious advertisement and cruft.--71.30.248.202 22:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Doubles?

There is no mention of doubles play in the article.

Doubles expands the gameplay from the 4 arrows on one pad to all 8 arrows on both pads. Generally, doubles is reserved for more advanced players or those who are looking for a more challenging experience. Many freestyle players expand from singles to doubles in order to allow for more freedom of movement. Casual players avoid doubles because of the difficult learning curve and higher cost (generally twice) at arcades.

Technique and style should also be discussed.

You know, you are quite right! I can't believe I didn't spot this problem last time I looked in here - and I'm almost exclusively a doubles player! LinaMishima 16:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

--67.68.161.124 23:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Д67.68.161.124 23:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)samuel

[edit] FFR

Flash Flash Revolution is probably the most popular DDR simulator. Dance with Intensity is completely obsolete and is nearly impossible to find, Pydance is used by literally no one in the DDR simulation community, and Text Text Revolution is laughable. The only simulators really even worth mentioning are Stepmania and FFR. Stepmania for serious players and FFR for casual players, as well as some serious players. Why is it that certain people want to erase it from Wikipedia while other jokes are allowed to remain? Afrobean 21:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • 100% agreed. - Chardish 02:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

While removing the terrible simulators from the article is perfectly acceptable in my eyes (as they really aren't commonplace at all), FFR deserves to be mentioned due to it's large fanbase, if nothing else. FFR definitely has more appeal to the average person than Stepmania due to it's ease of play (ie it's browser based, so no downloads are required), and I sincerely doubt that as many people play Stepmania as FFR. Afrobean 13:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have played both, and I agree that StepMania and FFR are probably the only two worth mentioning. However, I was extremely dissatisfied with FFR as a simulator due to its horrific timing with most songs, the incorrect arrow colors, the extremely strange life bar, and the way it counts extra steps (most commonly known as ghost stepping) as misses. These are quite different from the way the real DDR functions. StepMania emulates the real thing much better.

Definitely keep StepMania. I couldn't really care much for FFR. Anything else could likely be left out.

24.8.119.8 22:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DDR the movie

on imdbpro there is aparently info about a ddr movie. i do not have a pro account, so i cannot see any info on this,though it appears to have a trailer and some movie info. if any one has a pro acocunt it would be super awsome to give a small amount of info about this. also in yahoo espania there is some kinda trailer for a movie about people doing ddr that was released in spain. it also has a imdb page. i dont think it was mentioned in the article. http://imdb.com/title/tt0893400/maindetails http://imdb.com/title/tt0807006/ Owenlars2 05:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This movie is mentioned in the article, under the In Popular Culture section. Regards, Rahzel 22:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merging of subarticles into a single encyclopedic article

Resolved Resolvedproposal rejected

The individual articles primarily vary from each other in terms of the list of songs and details regarding the release (market, date, name of release). The entire series would be better represented by a single, well-written article on the series rather than by needless duplication and listing or minor, non-encyclopedic differences between the versions. —Doug Bell talk 04:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you crazy? There are so many versions of the game, each game's collection of new songs increasing almost every time, the fact that the game is in arcades, on the PS2, PS1, Game Boy, Dreamcast, XBox, XBox 360, N64, and probably other systems, there is WAY too much variance between the games to warrant one huge article. sherl0k 04:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps one for the arcade versions and one for the game system versions? The listing of the individual songs is not encyclopedic, and the proliferation of the articles is not useful. A single, or very few, well-structured articles will do much better at presenting the information than the current out-of-control set of articles. —Doug Bell talk 07:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the listing of each song IS encyclopedic, and coming from someone who has playing the game for over 6 years, The proliferation IS useful. You don't see Wikipedia grouping certain animals together just because they're from the same family and have little differences, why would you group a series of videogames together? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sherl0k (talk • contribs) 01:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
The listing of each song is a large amount of needless detail. I'm trying to propose changes to make this into a better coverage of the game, not a bigger coverage—the two are not the same. —Doug Bell talk 02:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
When a game revolves mainly around the MUSIC in the game, one would assume that listing the songs inside said games is pretty notable, I would say. How is that not encyclopedic? If anything you're worsening the coverage by removing pertinent information from the articles. For further reference, please take a look at Guitar Hero and Guitar Hero II. Removing the songs in the articles will greatly reduce the amount of information about each game. What you assume to be needless many others see as a necessary addition. sherl0k 02:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The Dance Dance Revolution games are like music albums. They are released like jukeboxes with different sets of music over a period of time. Listing each game as a seperate entity is much more orginized that listing the differences between each release a single, bloated article. You don't put a bands entire discography in a single article just because all the albums were released by the same people, regardless of whether or not songs were repeated or remixed. You don't have a single article for every single Mario game just because he's the main character of each game. This is the same circumstance. I do propose that the articles in question be better organized, the individual articles need to share a level of uniformity that they currently do not, but that's talk for those pages. This article is meant to reflect information on Dance Dance Revolution the series/pop culter icon/etc. It is a launching point into more detailed articles about a specific mix or version of the game. AeronPrometheus 06:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The games are not like albums. The articles on the games contain zero discussion of characteristics of the songs. They simply list the songs. There is, frankly, no value in that comparison. Mario games are sufficiently different from one another that the articles about the games are not created by first copy-pasting the article about the previous game, so that comparison is valueless. —Doug Bell talk 07:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If you want to go that route, the first three Sonic the Hedgehog games are all very strikingly similar (grab the rings, beat the boss at the end of the stage) yet all three have separate articles. Also the Game Gear version has its own article, which has the same premise.
Furthermore, removing the songlists from the articles is akin to removing a listing of colors to the rainbow. It's what makes the game what it is. sherl0k 09:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I suppose we could work on the Sonic games next, but the fact is, there's only three of them. There's much more to gain with my time trying to improve the organization of the information on this collection of articles. You can keep parading straw men in here, but it would be more helpful to discuss improving the Dance Dance articles instead of continuing to make faulty comparisons. —Doug Bell talk 09:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The organization is far from flawed. Each game has its own set of songs, and yes the games DO repeat songs. But that doesn't mean that the information is any less pertinent or encyclopedic. As amusing as it may sound, the actual [Encyclopedia] article explains this within the first line, being as though the inclusion of the songs is not only comprehensive but also extends one's branch of knowledge on the subject. Someone going to play a certain version of the game would want to know if a specific song is on there; A quick look at the song list will tell the user if the song is included or not. Being an avid player of the game, and one who would want to ensure that people who WANT to know more can get as much pertinent information about the game possible, the listing of songs in the game is actually a bigger factor than one would think.sherl0k 17:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

<dedent>there are exactly 950 songs released among all official arcade and console versions
Just exactly how is it encyclopedic to list 950 different songs, many if not most of them dozens of times for different variants of the game? The Guitar Hero games you reference doesn't need the songs listed to be a good article on the game, but the modest number of songs can be listed in the article without overwhelming it. So in that case, the songs could stay or go, but adding them is not detremental to the encyclopedic coverage. I would argue for removing the song lists from the articles, but it's a subjective call. That same statement does not hold true to a series with over 90 variantions on the same theme and different combinations of the song available on each. Having individual articles on each variation of the game is frankly mind numbing, and attempting to list every song for every variation is over the top. That level of detail is simply not suitable for an encyclopedic coverage of the topic. We wouldn't list 950 different levels in a arcade game—it doesn't add to an understanding of the game. —Doug Bell talk 02:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought, then: on arcade styles, mention new songs and removals from previous editions (given that, admittedly, the lists are rather unwieldy on most later mixes). On console editions, list complete songlists. The songs ARE a key part of the game, which is why under no circumstances would I advise removing them from the entries. (To be honest, I like the current setup, but as a last resort I want my input given.) -FJArnett 07:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with the current setup at all, and an individual article on each game makes perfect sense. There's no reason to change anything. sherl0k 09:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The merger is in no means necessary. The articles are neither stubs, nor are they cruft. They're seperate titles per WP:GAMES.--WaltCip 14:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well I expected my suggestion would meet resistence because at least the first people responding would most likely be the people that have spent so much time creating the current collection. It's like in writing a book—it can be hard letting go of chapters written when the editor wants to axe them to improve the work as a whole. When I get some more time I'll do a preliminary analysis of what the differences between the various articles are (other than the song lists). I suspect that will make a much more forceful argument. —Doug Bell talk 16:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that the enormous game popularity, enough to create literally dozens of different games, surely warrants different articles for each game. The current DDR article deals with the game phenomenon and history, while each game's article deals with the specifics. Maybe we can organize the whole deal better; there's no need to have a separate article for every and each game, but surely we can merge into "main articles" for each one of the main branches (by arcade mixes, and some extra articles for several remarkable console spin-offs). So instead of having one article for each Extreme Arcade, Extreme Console version, and Extreme 2, you have one for Extreme, listing console ports and differences between them and the main game branch. We don't need one article for each of the three Ultramix releases, with one it's enough. We don't need separate small articles for each of the licensed DDR games: Oha, Tokimeki, Disney, etc., instead we have an article about them. We could reduce the number of articles and repeated stuff by half at least. About the song lists: I doubt that it's encyclopedic, each game article should have a list of the notable "new" songs and not much else. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Putting as example other lists which fall within that category is not an excuse for their existence. I would consider more important to have a list of all Van Gogh paintings instead, but we only have a list of important, relevant paintings. Same should happen with this, just that the list of remarkable DDR songs is more a matter of trivia and it should be merged into the corresponding article, IMHO. To sum it up, I agree to some extent with the OP and some points that there are many articles about DDR games, but I don't think they should all be merged into one huge article. --Pi (π) 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, now we're getting somewhere! When I made the proposal to merge everything into a single article, I actually expected that a middle position such as Pi72 suggests might be the resulting decision. I wholly support the idea. I'm sure I would favor greater consolidation into fewer articles wherever such a choice could be made, but would have no problem with a well-considered set of articles that covered the truly different classes of the game. Nor would I have an issue with discussion of some of the songs—it is the unencyclopedic listing of every song for every version that I take issue with. —Doug Bell talk 00:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Maybe now we're onto something. I always think that balanced solutions are often a better option than going to any extreme. I also thought, from the first time I saw this article, that this article, the game articles and everything DDR related was poorly structured. I'm sorry, I'm a bit noobish in Wikipedia so I don't know how would such a restructuration would happen. Should each superfluous article be nominated to be merged into its main "game branch" article separately? Do we have to agree first on a good, sensible and well-thought structure before starting any action? Maybe we should have a talk at the CVG WikiProject first, prepare a draft of the proposed changes, and only then begin the work? Would it be enough with a poll here? I'm not sure what's the best course of action.--Pi (π) 00:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Really any of those options is workable. Gathering consensus is what this discussion is about. Once there is general consensus to make a change, then the specifics can be hammered out. We're not there yet though as I'm sure other people will weigh in with their opinions on the general consensus issue. Hopefully in a day or two this thread will reach a point of general consensus on how to proceed, but it's best not to assume that two people agreeing is consensus. —Doug Bell talk 00:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that more would be lost than gained if every single article is flattened into a single page. There would simply be too much information to look at, and would result in someone else coming along and requesting that the page be broken into smaller chunks. What would be a good idea is if SOME articles be merged. Here's an example:


Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME
Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME (Japanese PlayStation 2)
Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME (American PlayStation 2)
Dance Dance Revolution EXTREME 2


One would look at those four and say that they should all be one article, because they're all part of the EXTREME "series". However, being someone that knows a lot about Dance Dance Revolution, I can tell you that that is only partially correct. The first two are related, the Japanese PlayStation 2 version of EXTREME is a direct port of the original arcade version. While the two do not share the same song list they are closely enough related that they could be considered two sides of the same coin. The last two are a different story. EXTREME and EXTREME 2 in America are not tie-ins with the original version. They simply share the namesake because, to avoid a prolonged explination, Konami wanted to reuse the name in a market that had not yet seen it. Even EXTREME 2 doesn't relate to the original EXTREME or even the American EXTREME. In fact, aside from the names of all four being similar, there is nothing about the last two games listed that relate them to the first two. The song list is different (To say the least), the user interface is different, even the scoring engine is different. All you have left is the fact that they're all DDR games and they have a common titling scheme. I would suggest that a system be put in place (By those of us familier with the series) to link arcades and their home version ports but have the indiginous versions retain a seperate article. This would definitly reduce the total number of articles and still allow for detailed descriptions of each game (themes, song lists, unlocks, etc...) without overwhelming a single article or making too many. Pi, you mentioned that you don't need a list of every single painting done by Van Gogh. What if I wanted to see or learn about all the painting you personally deem unimportant? Just because you don't have extensive knowledge of a subject doesn't mean anyone else should be denied such knowledge if they seek it. That's what an encyclopedia was meant for, to give as much relevent knowledge to whomever would want it. And personal opinions aside, what you and Doug seem willing to part with is in fact relevent information on the games, and the series as a whole. So, could an agreement be made to merge obvious ports/appends/alternate versions into single articles, remove any stubs until someone can come along and flesh out the information on missing games, and leave this main article, as I pointed out a few posts up, to information regarding the series, pop culture reference, etc. as a whole. AeronPrometheus 02:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitary section break 1

Although I know a bit about DDR, I'm by no means an expert; I was putting the Extreme games as examples, and the proposals of the specifics for a new reorganization should be done by experts. I agree with almost all the points on AeronPrometheus comments, except that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have encyclopedic articles, not monographs with *every* possible information about a subject. I think we can agree on that. We might disagree where the line is, for example, I think that listing every Van Gogh painting is better suited for a reference work, not for an encyclopedia, and same goes for song lists of every DDR game. I don't deny the knowledge, I just think that Wikipedia is not the place for such kind of data, instead it should reference other reference works, for example, sites with DDR song databases (and I know at least two). That's just my opinion, of course. Some things said in Wikipedia and Meta might seem to say that Wikipedia should contain as much data as possible; but judging by how some things, or better said, many things are left out of a lot of articles, and specially by reading WP:NOT, it's actually not the case. At best, complete song lists for every DDR game are trivia. Talking about DDR stuff, I think this article should be more or less left as it is, but I also think it needs a major clean-up, and notice that this article is both about DDR as game series, and about the first DDR game, and then contains a list of DDR releases when there's another article for DDR games... I think that it's a bit of a mess, and I agree with Dough that a revamp and some restructuration is needed. The specifics are left for when we reach a consensus that such restructuration is needed, and then people can say what should be merged and kept, and how.--Pi (π) 12:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, Pi. And if you could, go ahead and drop those links you mentioned at the bottom of the article just to put them out there. I might not have seem exactly what you're talknig about before. Though, the thing about sending people to other websites to look for complete song lists is that seldom does a website get everything right at the same time. Wikipedia can do what those countless fan sites cannot, get the whole thing done up correctly. However if we can find a standing site somewhere else that can provide in full, without making the user go through several links, the information that you two would classify as trivia, then that would work as an alternative. I still think that the pages should be brought up to spec before a judgement call specifically related to the track lists can be made.
ALL of the pages need a massive overhaul, that is without question. I didn't really realize how bad it was until I looked through them last night. The page Dancing Stage shouldn't even exist. Not only is it a stub, it has incorrect visual references and it should redirect to this article with a subarticle that mentions why (Without mention here to avoid a prolonged post). I have already and intend to continue improving the articles as they stand, when I find time. I'm also going to sit down and find out which articles should merge and which should retain their sovereignty. I'll make my suggestions to that effect forthwith.AeronPrometheus 00:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

<dedent>Ok, it seems that we're starting to make a broader agreement, but I'd also like to know the opinion of the people who commented about the merging in the beginning of this discussion, now that the targets and ways of merging have been specified quite differently to what Doug stated initially. Also, a restructuration of a whole set of articles, rather than just one article, might mean that we should talk about this deeply before making any action, and reach to a good amount of agreement (maybe not in the specifics, but surely in the merging-by-parts concept). I really need to put one of those "depression" templates in my user page, because right now I can't really commit to much more than giving my opinion. I have another Wiki project (Gil Elvgren, see my user page, sandbox two) stalled for a week. But I'd like to see DDR covered in a better way. I suggest to open a subpage in this talk dealing solely with the restructuration, which articles it covers, if it should be made, and how it should be made, so people knows were are we going with all this, and there are no hard feelings in any side. I'll try to find the two song databases I was talking about, one is incomplete, but advancing, and the other is highly complete with a lot of Bemani games, not only DDR, but my bookmark is like 2mb... Gimme time! --Pi (π) 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No merging should happen. Madden games have seperate articles, as do yearly baseball game series (MLB, MVP and so on), same goes for other sports games. Plus other annual titles that are sequels: Mario Party and so on. One long article isn't a good idea at all. Another example: movies and their sequels aren't one long article, games deserve seperate articles as well. RobJ1981 11:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
We're not talking about one huge merged article anymore; we're talking about a needed revamp and restructuration, and merging some unneeded articles into better covered articles. About the examples you've put, maybe they need merging, maybe not, and I think each case should be considered separately. Maybe the Madden games shouldn't be merged, but I think that, e.g. Oh No! More Lemmings should be merged with Lemmings because it has barely nothing new compared to the original (nothing notably different, I mean), besides 100 new levels. Having a new article where 95% of the data is repeated is pointless, IMHO. Other Lemmings sequels which are different and contain enough novelties surely grant a different article. I just put it as an example, nothing more. But that's what we're doing right now, considering what and how should be merged (if you've read the whole discussion). What there's now is separate articles for the console versions, and sometimes they're not needed because they're exactly like the arcade versions but with less songs, and other times they're totally different and deserve a different article. I also want to comment something else about song lists: Wikipedia shouldn't offer what other fansites can't offer. Other fansites, or other places, books, whatever, are references used in Wikipedia, and not the reverse. Wikipedia needs to reference something, and if there's nowhere to reference, Wikipedia can't and shouldn't contain unreferenced material. If the only place to find a complete songlist is Wikipedia, then it's absolutely original research, and that goes against one of the oldest and strongest Wikipedia policies. If there are places which contain these songlists, and they're only copied into Wikipedia, I don't see the point either, it's too much fancruft/listcruft. But, at the same time, I think that in the whole mess, songlists are low-priority, and they can be left aside while the merging (or not merging) happens. Let's focus on one step at a time, if that's ok with all of you. Btw I added links to a couple song databases, but I'm not sure of how really complete they are. If anyone wants to check... I also noticed that some songlists have been already deleted, as per AfD process. The MAX2 songlist has been deleted, for example. --Pi (π) 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The two pages you linked to where ones I knew about but haven't looked into. However I don't think either of them will be much help, bemanistyle is about the Bemani series of games as a whole and they care more about the most popular series like Pop'n'music and beatmaniaIIDX. DDRUK has for year had long standing problems with the continuity of its information and are in no hurry to fix it. However, I did remember I have a link to a Japanese page that has a very concise list of the mixes and their songlists. That's the problem though, how many people on the English Wiki can read Kanji? If it's Wikipedia's policy to provide information to those who could otherwise not get to it easily then the songs should be part of each mixes' article. If the information doesn't exist coherantly outside of Wikipedia then it can't be posted because it's viewed as original research. If the information does exist somewhere else then users have to go there themselves away from Wikipedia. In the specific case of the songlists I would be forced to make a website outside of Wikipedia for the explicit purpose of linking to it from a Wiki article. Thus making the No Original Research article pointless cause they will be there in one form or another. Knowledge has to start somewhere...
I seriously thought Wikipedia was meant to allow people to find the info that they were looking for in one place, and only linked elsewhere when having that info on the page would violate a certain copyright law. With the issues presented here Wikipedia seems to me as not much more than a glorified search engine assembled by the masses. And that's only if an article is written correctly. As it stands the DDR articles contain random patches of information, a mis-matched series of articles, and fixing them with the missing info would also make them in violation of Wikipedia's terms. So their existance is then what? A brief summery of what DDR is so someone will get the reference if they hear the acronym thrown around at the local mall? I fear that people coming to Wikipedia to learn about DDR would be in for a let down when they get a few sentances abouth the existance of the games and then sent on their way through articles linking to websites that don't do any better a job at providing information about them. If someone's already taking it into their hands to remove things from the articles that are still in discussion isn't that also a violation of Wikipedia's terms. Or can I go vigilante on the articles as well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AeronPrometheus (talk • contribs) 20:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I'd be inclined to agree that they should be all merged into one article, as they are essentially the same game. Nothing wrong with that, as they article can differentiate the versions. Fr0 15:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

To AeohPrometheus: I don't think you're really getting well what Wikipedia is, and what its aims are. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not the ultimate repository of every bit of information (at least not yet). Just a compendium of knowledge which summarizes larger works, but not a compendium of all the larger works. I suggest you to read, if you've not done yet, several articles about these things: Wikipedia's Five Pillars (specially the first one, with the details), Policies and guidelines and What Wikipedia Is Not (specifically "not an indiscriminate collection of information"). An encyclopedia is not a huge collection of monographs to gather everything to cover each subject. Maybe I'm getting a bit technical here, but have you ever read the article Encyclopedia? Or Compendium, since it is in the definition of Wikipedia? Specifically answering your post, external links are included mainly as references, something which every single bit of information in Wikipedia should have: verifiable sources (although paper references are preferred). External links in the "see also" sections are provided for people seeking for completeness and other reference works. About the people who might be already changing things in articles, you first have to think if those edits could be explained by normal maintenance; an editor might find inappropiate certain stuff in an encyclopedic article, and then delete or move it. Certain song lists have already been deleted per the "Articles For Deletion" process; an article is nominated to be deleted, and after some discussion, an administrator deletes it or not depending on the result of the discussion and reasoning in it. Listcruft is quite despised in Wikipedia. Do not take it as personal attack, and don't worry since all changes can be reversed, and information can be extracted from deleted changes to be, for example, posted in another article. --Pi (π) 22:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll just pit in my word here, even though i don't work on DDR articles often. The list of songs is NO LONGER A PROBLEM. General Consensus has deleted all song lists completely. So I fail to understand why everything in this debate has been over the issue of a trivial list...... On the other hand, merging would indeed be a bad idea, as each of the games is indeed a separate of the entire franchise. Some of the articles are stubs true, but it IS IMPOSSIBLE, to merge all 36 articles together. Not only would that go against WP:GAMES, it would create a 3 MB article. God heavens if wikipedia needs that... Each arcade series page has its own unique playing style, along with an in depth section on how the arcade version works. Non of the arcade versions are clones of each other.
Now, the home versions only articles, they can be merged, no argument their. Short stubs, pointless information, nothing unique. However, merging the arcade articles is a bad idea. They simply have too much information to cram into one article. WP:GAMES once again, each series deserves its own article, unless its simply insignificant or something. Declaring a merge of these large, expansive articles is comparable to merging AOE articles together, Warcraft articles together, or Diablo articles together, simply because it is a game that is part of the overall series. Sorry, but i don't see how it would benefit wikipedia to merge the arcade articles, besides having one 3 MB article.
Here's the solution i propose. Merge all homeedition articles into one page, and redirect the merged pages to it. Then, create a page for ARCADE versions only, with a brief summary on each, leading to the main arcade article. A sort of advanced organization page, if you must. Floria L 01:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
That's more or less what we've been talking about now; it's just that a new proposal draft hasn't been posted somewhere to read and work around it (maybe this needs a task force too). I wouldn't merge all the home editions into one page, for example, but the exact merging is something to discuss in a near future. About the songlists, it's not that they're an issue now or not, it's just that I'd like to explain to people why certain stuff doesn't have much place in Wikipedia, rather than have them blindy follow a decision from a discussion that they might haven't had part into. Btw, when this discussion started, songlists weren't deleted yet, IIRC. It has been a dragged subject from the beginning, that's all.--Pi (π) 02:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If we were to merge all of the home editions, we'd have to explain why each console does not seem to follow the same title progresssion, yet alone if they do, then why are they not the same as their arcade counterparts. Not to mention the fact that we have many systems to cover. (PC, Plug-and-play, Gameboy color are ones that are not the obvious). What's the difference between DDR SuperNOVA, Hottest Party and Universe. They all were released around the same time, but all are different in one way or another. It may become sloppy at best. If we were to merge home versions, we should have separate articles by console or company. --wL<speak·check·chill> 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

If all the DDR articles are to merge, then merge all the star wars movies into one or anything else that has had different versions of it's original released.

That's a straw man argument on too many levels to even bother listing them. —Doug Bell talk 01:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


The only way that I would support the merging of articles is if it is the SAME game (pretty much...like the Supernova release in Japan and North America). The games are entirely different, with different songs, different play. It wouldn't be fair to merge say DDRMAX2 and DDR Supernova because the songs, the set up, the characters, and even the options are just completely different. If this were fair, then ALL video game series should be merged into one article. I don't find it appropriate. I would support more so the arcade AND home edition being in one article, then I would them to all be merged into two broad categories. WiiAlbanyGirl 04:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree Strongly Would create a HUGE main article, and they are just like sequels, such as Katamari Damacy and We Love Katamari. WestJet 19:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There's no need for a merge when there are so many separate articles, each of which contains valid content. These games are certainly notable and don't merit collapsing into a single "here's the series in general" article. -- Slordak 20:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I believe the original article is quite long enough... adding each individual spinoff in a section of its own will make the article unnecessarily longer... And we'll just end up having this discussion again, only discussing whether to fork the articles or not. Kareeser|Talk! 17:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose Do not dare to merge it. It would be a big mess. Oscar22 17:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Support merging into a small set of articles focusing on the different major themes (such as home version, arcade version, maybe a few others). —Doug Bell talk 01:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Each article has a sufficient amount of information to stand on its own, even as stubs (and stubs are legal in Wikipedia, BTW). If it's not broken, don't fix/break it.--WaltCip 17:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • In fact, none of the arcade game articles violate Wikipedia policy. With a quick browse-through, in fact, they have the potential to be expanded each through pictures; near-textbook examples of Wikipedia fledgling articles. See WP:N.--WaltCip 17:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose - This merger makes no sense. The games are all easily notable on their own and can be expanded enough (mode differences, varying time windows, online play, etc.) that each should have its own article. Oren0 20:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose. This game is unique from other DDRs and deserves its own page.Quatreryukami 13:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose - There are so many differences concerning each game that even merging similar games would needlessly bloat each article. For example, even if there was an article concerning only the arcade releases, it would have to describe Long versions, SSR Mode, Oni mode, Nonstop mode, The groove radar, the foot rating system, Freeze arrows, the different Extra Stages for each mix (as well as One More Extra Stages), Genre selection (and how it differs between 4th Mix and SuperNOVA), different dancing characters and how you select them, the different difficulty names between each mix, the different modifiers for each mix (including the different ways to access them), the different ways of selecting Single, Double, and Versus, differing hardware and framerates, different styles for each song selection screen (i.e. songwheel vs. 4th Mix's banner list), and numerous other things. I would go as far as to say that different mixes of DDR are as different as (or even more different than) Doom and Doom II. At least differing versions of say, DDR 3rd Mix (DDR 3rd Mix, DDR 3rd Mix Asian, DDR 3rd Mix Korean v1, DDR 3rd Mix Korean v2, and DDR 3rd Mix Plus) are merged. Any further merging is needless and will only result in either incredibly bloated and messy articles, or a loss of non-trivial information concerning each mix. Maxx573 06:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/n/Talk%7EDance_Dance_Revolution_a496.html"