Talk:Shadow of the Colossus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Shadow of the Colossus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 22, 2007.
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
Featured article FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of mid priority within gaming for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.
This is a selected article of WikiProject Video games.
This article has an archived CVG peer review that may contain ideas for improvement.
CVG To-do:
Archive
Archives
  • Archive 1 (August 25, 2005 – January 21, 2006)
  • Archive 2 (January 22, 2006 – March 11, 2006)
  • Archive 3 (April 14, 2006 – April 29, 2006)
  • Archive 4 (June 10, 2006 – August 7, 2006)

Contents

[edit] Deleted "Difficulty" Section

Got rid of some vandalism.

[edit] Vandalized Again?

Someone put a very disgusting picture on it.. Can someone clean it up, I'm not much of a writer :s -Stevenbranton

[edit] Lock

I just reverted the article after someone blanked the entire thing. I think that someone who knows how to or who has the authority should lock this article to prevent any more vandalizism. If no one has done it by the time that I actually figure out how to, I'll do it myself. --Absurdity 15:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Main Page articles are not protected. Spiesr 19:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, that's the first time I've heard of it. Abuse seems to be a pretty frequent issue with featured articles and they've been locked in the past. Anyway, thanks Extreme Unction for semi-protecting it. --Absurdity 20:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article... again?

Correct me if I'm wrong... hasn't this already been a featured article back in 2006? ARBlackwood 02:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't get enough of SotC Old m 14:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalized

This page links to images of Adolf Hitler. It is being rapidly edited and vandalized.

User:Jarex

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. ffm yes? 01:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Like I said, I tried to undo the vandalism, but forgot how to revert. I was just afraid if my IP would get blacklisted. 129.74.231.169 01:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


I have begun to notice alot of vandalism on the daily FAs..

"The four stages of cruelty" article was vandalized several times when it was on the front page the other day. SeriousCat 02:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article!

Congratulations, and a huge thanks to all involved! The progress this article has made ever since its informal peer review in early July has been nothing short of astounding.

I've archived all of the talk from the page into Archive 4 to give us some room. Again: great work, everyone! --Onlynameicanget 03:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoa.... when will it be sen on the front page? -- Psi edit 05:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, first we need to write up a request for it to appear on the front page, which is the next step for the article. Even then, it may take a while for it to be added to the queue. I remember it took quite a while for Final Fantasy X's article, for example, to go on the front page - either that or they submitted the request long after it was featured. --Onlynameicanget 05:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I've made that box thing here (Note, I had to comment out the image due to fair use in userspace and all that). I'd personally like to request September the 18th. -- Steel 12:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Minus the image, the example box you made sounds good. As for a front page day, as I mentioned before, October 18th would be best since it's the first anniversary of the game's release. I know you'd like to see it appear on your birthday (a fine present that would be), but when specific days are requested, Raul wants to see it based on something relevant to the work itself. For some current examples, User:Monocrat is pushing Excel Saga for October 7, that anime's anniversary, while User:Peirigill is requesting All Saints' Day for the Gregorian Chant (this connection is obvious, I think). Ryu Kaze 12:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if that's what Raul wants. I guess it's not as if my life depends on it appearing on that date in September. -- Steel 12:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
October 18th sounds good to me. --Onlynameicanget 14:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
*Burps* -- Steel 17:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Awesome job everyone. Hope I was helping more then getting in the way. Great learning experience that. Tani unit 20:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you were helpful. Thanks for the compliment. Ryu Kaze 23:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Amen. -- Psi edit 15:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had any time to work with Wikpedia lately, so it was a GREAT treat to come back and see Shadow of the Colossus on the front page! Congratulations, everyone! Huzzah!
—ZorkFox (ষTalk) 00:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Video games should be banned from FA status. They make such boring FAs. I mean its cool that you guys make up-to-wiki-standards articles, but its much easier to make a NPOV up-to-standards article with video games, because there isn't much to them, so there ends up being all these video game FAs. Its dissapointing to see a video game FA. Brentt 00:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I was glad to see one of my favourite games pop up as an FA. And besides, this game borders on art. Scratch that, it is art.SeriousCat 00:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with Brentt, but on a different basis. You cannot disqualify something from being important or valuable simply because you feel it's not a challenge or it's information so finite that it's a cinch to whip up an A grade page on it. There's no reason to discredit real and honest work and passion just because you don't think it's significant, and you should be glad there's pages like ICO. It shows that Wikipedia is unique, that it truly is a place for anyone and everyone to come together and hammer out a page that wouldn't even exist otherwise. Holier than thou attitudes and reservations on relevance on something that you do not understand completely (which goes for everyone) is a sign of your own close mindedness and discriminatory biases, you are not an avatar of academics, and if you were, you would respect this page and it's same veined cousins as you would respect any other well written page. Whether or not ICO is relevant is a moot point, no one person can decide or is deserving to decide. On another basis, video game FA BRING IN NEW BLOOD. Video games FA reaches an audience that would not be obtained by featuring WWII or Supernovas, and this brings in new people into the Wikipedia, and possibly into the Wikipedia fold of contribs. On this note, common courtesy and respect for all the pages, even the silly ones about Spongebob or mundane like diodes, will make Wikipedia a better place.Antsam 11:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, your opinion is in the minority, as it should be. I have little interest in video games (or moralistic engravings, for that matter), but it's still fascinating to see what a unique game did differently from others, and how it fits into the development of its field (the Ico link was similarly interesting). You'd profit from learning to enjoy the feeling of diving into an unfamiliar field and learning a little part of it, but if that's not you cup of tea, simply don't read it. 216.52.69.217 13:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers

Hey, shouldn't the story (especially the end) be covered by spoiler tags? I'm going to cover it with spoiler tags. I sure as hell wouldn't have liked the end to be spoiled for me.TheSOB 00:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not. Read the talk archive first. Schicksal 00:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The section is clearly marked "Plot", as is the sub-section "Story". Why would someone read these sections and not expect a comprehensive overview? That's what we're here to do. Ryu Kaze 13:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
So...I'm confused. Wikipedia has a "Spoiler" tag so people will be aware of spoilers, yet in a section that contains spoilers, there's a debate as to whether to use it or not? I don't really understand why this is an issue in the first place. I think a lot of you Wikipedians make mountains out of molehills sometimes when it comes to this website. :) 13:56, 22 October 2006
I would agree. The vast majority of other pages for videogames, films, books, etc. have spoiler warnings. Someone might think that as they are not present in this case that there are therefore no spoilers. For the sake of uniformity they should be used. Hinges 15:04 18th January 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that most gamers will go look at the basic plot(like the one on the back of a videogame box)on here to get the idea. Then there would be a spoiler line below that telling all the spoiling stuff.--Animasage 18:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't care what's been going on in this article's talk page - stuff like this is exactly what the spoiler tags are for, and this is how the vast majority of similar articles use them. If I wasn't such a WP noob, I'd add them myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.112.22.121 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
I agree: spoiler tags should be included; and it seems the majority of posters above agree. From skimming the archives, the only relevant thread I saw was this, which ultimately didn't have any apparent conclusion, anyway, as far as SotC is concerned. Now that this article is FA, it is even more likely that people will read this whom may not intend to discern the spoilers. I'm going to be bold and add the tags in. Er, since there are big warnings on the main page not to insert spoilers -- I am reading the talk page but I have yet to be convinced why the tag should not be included. I highly recommend that the regular editors of this article reconsider this stance and perform the necessary modifications. I do not see what harm comes with including the warning. --Thisisbossi 01:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I have to also agree; I was reading through hoping to avoid any spoilers whatsoever... but expecting spoiler tags to hide the plot because that's what I find everywhere else. Plot and Story headings a sub-headings made me suspicious, but I still expected any spoilers to be marked accordingly. Estel (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
to Ryu: I would definately read them and not expect a comprehensive overview if there were no spoiler tags. Perhaps I just want a general idea of what the game is about. Please add spoiler tags.Ziiv 08:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I was skimming this article and found out what happens at the end of the game with no warning. I'm used to seeing spoilers so, when I didn't see one, I proceeded through as if it wouldn't reveal everything. This is the first article I've read that needed a spoiler alert but did not have one so I ask that one be put in place for people, like myself, who've not played the game but just wanted to know the gist of the concept. SailorAlphaCentauri 15:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I, too, just had the ending revealed (and some might say ruined) for myself simply because I've come to expect spoiler warnings for actual spoiler content in all Wikipedia articles. For those of us who value the art and enjoyment of video games, it's like having the end of a book revealed to us. This article needs tags. I was unable to find the debate about it, but anyone suggesting they should not be included they way they are in book and movie articles has no platform to stand on, in my opinion. Please add some spoiler tags. Being a FA, it's bound to be seen by many people who have no played the game and possibly plan to. --S.Reemas, Feb. 22, 2007 (74.64.17.195 talk)

I apologize for the double-posting, but I found the archived Spoiler Warnings debate in case anyone is interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/archive13#Spoiler_tags
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Spoiler_warning/Guideline_status
It's interesting to note that the entire "debate" is just a handful of the same people saying, basically, "Spoiler tags make us unlike Encyclopedia Britannica!" and clearly ignoring the other ways Wikipedia differs from the old model of an encyclopedia and what those differences mean to the public who will be accessing it. Even more importantly, the debates *do not* seem to have come to a consensus, were never put to a vote (again, as far as I saw), and removing the tags *does not* have the support of the majority of the community (at least as far as those two pages show). All that said, this article needs them. Already, the number of people who have stated it here matches the number of the most vocal people in the "debate" who believe that, universally, no article needs them. --S.Reemas, Feb. 22, 2007 (74.64.17.195 talk)

OK, I changed my mind (again) and out of good faith I have added in the spoiler tags. Even the comparable Ico has them, as do numerous other examples of entertainment-related topics. The conversations found by S.Reemas likewise did not appear to reach a consensus. I see absolutely no reason why spoiler tags should not be included and I fail to understand how they can take away from the article in any way. --Thisisbossi 21:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Spoiler tags are a manual of style guideline; they are not a policy, and this article's primary editors felt that they were unnecessary. For the same reason that we don't make sweeping changes to grammar and spelling variations, as well as other MoS issues, I feel that the spoiler tags need to be removed. This article was elevated to featured status by those who did not excersize the spoiler warning aspect of the manual of style, and it needs to be respected. And please do not quote WP:OWN; this is nothing to do with that. On the other hand, I understand many may feel that this page is being seen by many people who have not played this game, but when they scroll down to the "plot" section and see a wall of text, I think anyone with common sense will realize that they must read with caution. But the debate has been beaten and certain projects have agreed not to use them, and, like I said, it is important to respect that. People against spoiler warnings don't go to other areas and remove tags, and I believe the opposite should occur. — Deckiller 22:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
According to the WP:VG's style guidelines, spoiler tags are to be decided on a case by case basis (presumably because there is no clear consensus there to use them or not). However, based on the fact that this article has gone without spoiler tags for at least 6 months and even passed FA without them, it is apparent that a spoiler tag is not necessary, at least in this case. It seems that the "everyforum.com" culture has degenerated people's minds to the point that they must use spoiler tags as a crutch to avoid using their brains to process basic English words such as "plot" and "story". Axem Titanium 00:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Please do not deride Wikipedians whom hold a different opinion than your own and assume good faith. A plot or story does not necessarily indicate that an article will include spoilers. Also, just because an article has reached FA status does not mean that it is perfect -- there is always room for improvement, otherwise we should just fully protect all FA's. Please provide a reasoning of how spoiler warnings take away from the article. --Thisisbossi 02:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Here are just a few arguments; more have been made over the years and I can dig them out if you'd like (although I've found it impossibly difficult to change anyone's mind, especially on Wikipedia):
  • Wikipedia is not censored, as shown by what Wikipedia is not and the content disclaimer available at the bottom of every page.
  • Spoiler tags add nothing to the article. It's quite plainly obvious that a Wikipedia page about a topic is going to have spoilers on that topic. If you don't want to be spoiled about it, why would you even come to read it?
  • Spoiler tags break the flow of the article by clearly marking where spoilers can and cannot be. Limiting the article in such a way would force the editor to rearrange the article to its mutual degradation.
  • Spoiler tags are inherently POV because who are we as editors to say what is and what isn't a spoiler? Where is the line in a game beyond which information is considered a spoiler? Is there such a line? The opening scene of a game wouldn't be a spoiler to someone who's played it but to someone who hasn't bought it yet, it is a huge spoiler.
Granted, I don't expect you to change your opinion on this issue, these are the reasons why they have been excluded until now. Axem Titanium 02:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The point is that because spoiler warnings a case by case basis - and for months this article's primary editors who elevated it to FA, as well as the FA voters/prmoters, felt that they were not needed - people should be accepting this article as having no spoiler tags. — Deckiller 02:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the points. I do not see the relationship between spoilers and censorship, though -- no information is being hidden; it is being denoted. I agree that spoiler tags do not add to an article, but I feel that they avoid taking away from the subject for unsuspecting users. For your third bullet: I completely agree and must admit that I never really thought about that, but it seems that with this article, subjects which could be deemed spoilers are confined to one section. I could see how this could be a significant issue elsewhere, though. Lastly, for the fourth point: yes, this is also true, and another point I did not consider; but it's something that I feel could benefit from further elaboration regarding the use of spoiler tags, rather than nixing them altogether. I still feel that users may lose the mystery should they read this article before trying the game (perhaps they are reading it solely to acquire more info before they spend money on the game), but I have said what I wish to say and am taking this one off my watchlist. Slainte! --Thisisbossi 05:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Axem Titanium: On the first point, spoiler tags in no way hide or restrict information. Readers can choose to read if they wish, and censor themselves if they choose. On the second point consider who the reader is most likely to be: Someone who does not know about the game and is looking for general information. If they're interested in a video game they do not know much about, they in all likelyhood do not want the ending spoiled for them, thus articles that contain spoilers throughout the text are useless for them. What is the point in having an article about a form of entertainment if the entertainment itself is ruined by reading the article? As far as your fourth point goes, I have noticed that in almost all other articles which cover topics which could possibly contain spoilers, all portions which contain any plot at all are placed in spoiler tags, thus removing any confusion over what is and is not a spoiler, and without restricting the editors in any way.Ziiv 07:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I was away during the time the rest of the discussion took place and was unable to reply before the tags were removed. However, the issues raised to remove the tags again don't seem to be based on a broad perspective of what they actually do. This isn't about whether they make the article "technically" better or worse in anyway. It's about taking into account the fact that Wikipedia articles aren't written solely as an exercise in technical proficiency, but to serve a purpose for the readers. Thus I feel we should be considerate to our potential audience whether we deem them lacking in the "common sense" required to skip spoilers they might not want to see or not. Spoiler tags are not "censorship." Nothing is being omitted; on the contrary, they provide a diplomatic way to completely disclose information that others might have an issue with exposing (the ending to a movie that has just premiered, for example). The argument that they "add nothing" to the article is again, in my eyes, misguided as I don't feel it's about the article, per se, but about how you present it to the reader, taking into account that people are *not* accustomed to reading about new movies and video games in encyclopedias (something editors might forget now that it's so prevalent). Spoiler tags "breaking the flow of an article" is another non-issue, considering they are determined necessary on a case-by-case basis and, if an editor were so inclined, can be put at the very top of the article to denote spoilers throughout and then left to the reader. The most baffling to me is the point about the tags being "inherently POV". For one, that argument could be made about just about anything, including what is note-worthy enough for a Wikipedia article in the first place. Secondly, the tags simply denote that spoilers (as commonly defined) are present throughout the following text. They don't state a specific fact or sentence alone is a "spoiler", but that an entire sub-section *might* contain things that could spoil the movie/video game/book for the reader *as determined by the editor(s)*, obviously, the same way all the information deemed "note-worthy" was determined *by the editor(s)*. There is nothing wrong with that. And if it should at any point be contested, well, that's why anyone can edit these articles--multiple viewpoints will police the supposed "inherent" POV just fine. I'm not registered and don't have a talk page, so I don't believe it fair for me to re-add the tags without giving people the opportunity to respond directly. I do hope, however, that someone who is registered (or even better, someone who is actively working on this article--as we know, being a FA doesn't mean it's "perfect.".) sees this and takes the initiative to act if they see fit. I also hope there is someday a more definitive discussion of the issue. --S.Reemas, Feb. 27, 2007

[edit] Images

Hey, guys. I just thought I'd let you all know that I've resized four of the images on this page to ensure that they meet fair-use criteria. This change was sparked by the more intensive analysis of what is and isn't fair-use that's been going on lately, an example of which can be seen in Final Fantasy VII's FAC. I don't want any FA articles losing their status over this, or any good images being deleted. So if you guys have any articles you watch regularly, look into the sizes of their images. We don't want to lose any good material unnecessarily. Ryu Kaze 02:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does an image's size affect fair use? SeriousCat 03:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was believed that we could further justify fair use if the images we were using were not of a high resolution. It's certainly mentioned in the various templates for screenshots - Estel (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it's not size, but resolution that's important. If we knock down the resolution, but keep it the same size, that's fine (basically, resize the image to be small, and then blow it up again, losing detail (resolution) in the process). We want to avoid high-resolution images since they could arguably be not appropriate for fair use. -JC 10:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the adittion

Ok there was an adittion below the "plot Summery" which I deleted. First of all of course we have been through this as unfortunate as it seems for better or for worse SOTC shows almost no backstory what so ever. And its understandable that Fans would like to add there own "Speculation" and theory's. Its also understandable that they would like to input game Info that would belong more in a "Game FAQ" however it isent appropriate for a Encyclopedia like wikipedia. For those reason I have deleted. What was written was pretty good I hate to have to bump someone's hard work but it goes without saying ^^ Kara Umi 19:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting; it was never seen as a problem, even after a rigurous FAC. Moreover, it describes the setting of the game, which every video game FA and fictional FA does. It's far from speculation, because it's sourced. — Deckiller 19:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Things like "he presence of ruins and other ancient structures indicate that the area was once a human settlement" is speculation of course we dont know wether there has been a human settelment or not could dwarfs or elfs for all we know :) (Deleted) "The level of technology represented is comparable to that of the Middle Ages, though the architecture featured throughout the land matches no single cultural style." Of course we dont what the manner of comparison we should make to the game world and this one unless there is an official or clear distinction between them which there isent (Deleted). I would say the arcit compares more to babylonian style "Trepid Structures" i thought once the shrine looked like a babylonian ziggirut once but dident add my speculation. And Finnaly "The region is only accessible via a small cleft in the mountains to the north, which lead to a massive stone bridge" Of course there could be other ways (deleted) Kara Umi 19:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

We're given no indication that dwarves even exist in the game's world, so, no, I don't think we can say "Well, dwarves might have made it". There's also the fact that the Dormin directly state that Wander/Emon's people are the ones who sealed them, so I think it's a fairly reasonable assumption that humans have been there. As for the accessibility of the region, it is shown to only be accessible through that cleft. You can't go assuming things that aren't indicated by the game. However, I'll reword some of the paragraph to be more vague.
You need to understand that you can't unilaterally decide to remove a large amount of content, especially from a selected featured article. If you think there's an issue, you bring it up on the talk page so it can be discussed and adapted as necessary. You don't just outright remove it. Ryu Kaze 19:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, Kara, saying "the game" shadow of the colossus is redundant :) — Deckiller 19:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Kara, you didn't understand the line about the architecture. It was saying that no single culture's style is represented, not that you can't pinpoint cultural influences. The place would be an anthropologist's wet dream if it actually existed. Off the top of my head, I saw Aztec, Mayan, Babylonian and Indian influences in the place, but there's more than that. Anyway, I'm still adjusting the wording. I'll let you know when I'm finished. Ryu Kaze 19:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You know what, by the way again, how do the three sentences you brought up warrant deleting an entire section? Especially the parts that were referenced? Please tell me you're not going to claim that it's speculation that the place contains deserts or claim fault with the word "man-made". I am not replacing that with "dwarf-made" without some darn good reasoning for doing so. Anyway, I'm finished adjusting the wording some. Give it a look. Ryu Kaze 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I honestly prefer the original wording ("only accessible via" versus "only known entrance"), it reads much better in my opinion, and is hardly inaccurate considering this is an article about a game. Schicksal 19:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right. This is a game. It is therefore limited to what we are shown or what is suggested. If there was something else that leads there, we would have been shown or given a hint. Until Ueda makes something else that suggests otherwise, the region is only acessible via the small cleft in the mountains. That sentence I'm changing back. Ryu Kaze 19:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Kara, I want to apologize if I was too harsh. We all just put a lot of hard work into this article, and it was upsetting for somebody to come in and start changing things up without even talking to us about it first. Ryu Kaze 21:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Same here; Ryu and myself are clearly burning out. — Deckiller 06:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryu I can see how you would be against the warrant to delete the things you have yourself written no matter how inappropriate or unfitting of an encyclopaedia they are. The reason they will be deleted again is it does not belong in Wikipedia these are mere Speculation or wishful thinking on ones part. I decided against deleting the entire section until we can have a nice warm round up here :)

But I have instead removed the things that were not necessary and frankly not appropriate either. Nor do they follow the wikipedia Encyclopaedia "Form" that is usually upheld and I encourage you to take that in my mind as I wouldn’t say this is the first time. So again No writing’s like this "the presence of ruins and other ancient structures indicate that the area was once a human settlement" is defined as "Speculation" and until the game reveals other wise or Ueda clears things up or we will have to see what that madman has in store for us in the future we cant be so Sure. "level of technology represented is comparable to that of the Middle Ages, though the architecture featured throughout the land matches no single cultural style." Most certainly will be deleted forgive me for being so blunt but this cant be acceptable as one for Ueda's part he clearly stated and I think this has already been mentioned here, he responds to a question "where Inspiration came from" and he reply's he did not draw or clone from mythology. And your theory about the architecture is simply that theory. Someone else might be offended by it as this is theory in other words a hundred other people can have there own "theory" about it and claim you to be wrong, I could say "rather the Eskimo people were responsible for the architecture and a hundred others could say no it was the ancient biscuit scouts (lol) in other words its speculation. And this "The region is only accessible via a small cleft in the mountains to the north, which lead to a massive stone bridge" I don’t see to much trouble from it I guess we could let fans take a jab at this personally its been my belief but I will show more sincerity towards your section again and let it fly until someone else has a problem with it, because after all this is wikipedia open for everyone.

hehe relax iam sure you didn’t mean to be harsh ^^ though I don’t think you were. And iam sorry for not having enough time to reply to you as you can see in my first paragraph I didn’t have time to even write a decent reply. This all falls down to the previous problem we had, we introduced a solution which was to input a "Theory" section for fans to scribble in. You’re welcome to try that if you like I will certainly support you in it but until that "Speculation" and Theory's without a viable source or cite indicating such it will be deleted, take a look at the section now and tell me what you think Ryu oh and no way iam burnin out to ^^ Kara Umi 19:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing speculative about "The presence of ruins and other ancient structures indicates that the area was once a settlement". Obviously someone built them. As far as humans go, aside from the Dormin, all "higher level of thought" creatures we have seen in the SotC/Ico world are ordinary humans (and even then, the structures were obviously designed in proportion to humans). The Dormin were sealed by humans (specifically, Emon and Wander's people). Even the shadow creatures were once human (the PAL site states that once a creature ventures outside the mortal plane, all mortals can see of them is a shadow). In any event, the line reads "was once a settlemnt", not "was once a human settlement". Ryu Kaze 20:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you should probably think a bit more on what is or isn't speculation. Structures have to be built by beings, they don't just spring up out of nowhere. To build said structures beings have to "settle" there. Get my drift? And saying that the level of technology present is comparable to the Middle Ages is not speculative. We're not saying that the game took place in the Middle Ages. It's simply a way of explaining the technology level present in the game to the reader. As in, they use bows instead of guns, horses instead of cars, etc. If you can think of a better way to express that, do so rather than deleting it. I think we would all appreciate it if you considered your edits a bit more, possibly by trying to reach a consensus on this Talk Page, rather than removing content from the article on the basis that it's "speculation" (which I can safely say it is not). Schicksal 21:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Shicksal's right. That line wasn't there because we're trying to write a fanfic. That line was there because we're trying to describe the setting for the reader. Without that sort of thing, how are they to know that this isn't set in the present day, and that Wander's just decided to use a horse instead of a car? The purpose of a setting section is to establish the setting. Ryu Kaze 21:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I've now added a line that reads "Set in a traditional fantasy world, the level of technology represented is comparable to that of the Middle Ages". With two references for the fantasy setting, a link to the fantasy world article, and the knowledge that the most common fantasy stories involve a medieval Europe-like setting (thus, the Middle Ages), I think this should satisfy everyone. Ryu Kaze 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I just got back from my summer vacation so iam sorry for not getting a chance to respond sooner. Ryu you can edit and change the page but the fact is you can’t change what speculation means and you can’t change what is'nt appropriate for a Encyclopedia. "Set in a traditional fantasy world, the level of technology represented is comparable to that of the Middle Ages". With two references for the fantasy setting, a link to the fantasy world article, and the knowledge that the most common fantasy stories involve a medieval Europe-like setting (thus, the Middle Ages)" isn’t the world's setting nor is it what Ueda wanted. There are other people who all share different idea's about the setting because obviously it is a very fertile ground for creative thought. But then again that’s creative thought. If I was to reference Wander as being similar to Mongolians for there love and life with there horses and architecture for being actually similar and drawn from Babylonian style structures and the shaman society of Amon is that of ancient three kingdom's Korea in that respect Iam pretty sure I would be speculating. I’m insulted ^^. if you can paste down your speculation (wishful thinking) Ryu then why cant I? Well its simple onther person won’t agree with us he would say no Eskimo land is the right setting and onther would say no mars is the correct setting and onther would say hell no your all wrong it's mighty Neptune’s domain lol. And they can do that why well because you pretty much did it yourself here. I have an itch to do this also we both seem to be very well passionate about this story. But this is not what wikipedia is for we have gone through this alot and it seems this article always takes the front in this.

I guess I could let go the other points there’s no need to take it further however this thing about being in the middle ages sound like cocka mania sorry to say but just doesn’t fit as its speculation. There is no Official or even a hint that leads to this impression. And of course again Ueda has wanted to point out that his world is original and that "He did not draw from mythology" in that respect what you say is speculation and a loose one at that. There that part wil be deleted, again Kara Umi 15:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop deleting content without even addressing what's actually been discussed. Let me reiterate this for you once again: no one is saying that the game is set in the Middle Ages. No one is saying it is set on Earth. Your analogies are thoroughly inapplicable. The purpose of that sentence is to establish understanding of the technology displayed, and, thereby, contribute to an understanding of the setting. Thus, why the sentence uses the word "technology" and not "time period" or "era". There was nothing speculative in that sentence about the fantasy world setting and the technology. "Fantasy world" does not mean "Set in the Middle Ages on Earth". The technology we see is consistent with what we would expect to find in our world's Middle Ages: horses instead of cars and planes, swords and crossbows instead of guns.
The sentence was a straightforward assertion that several individuals who reviewed the game have also claimed. If Ueda didn't intend to create a fantasy world setting with technology similar to that of the Middle Ages, then he failed at whatever it was he was trying to do, because a fantasy world setting with technology similar to that of the Middle Ages is exactly what he created. You have offered nothing to refute this but wild analogies that aren't conducive to your argument, and accusations of "speculation" where no speculation is present. If you're going to continue to argue this matter, you need to actually provide some evidence for what you've claimed. Find us 1) evidence that this is not a fantasy world setting (impossible, unless you want to argue that it's set on Earth, in which case you'll be taking the same stance you're accusing us of taking) and 2) evidence that the technology displayed isn't associated with that of the Middle Ages (not worth arguing).
You claim to have played the game, but I'm finding this claim increasingly doubtful, because the clothing and technology we see in the game are not what we see in modern day settings, nor even what we would expect to find during an Industrial Revolution setting. Again, the sentence is not saying that the game is set in the Middle Ages or even on Earth. This information is purely for establishing an understanding of the setting for the reader. If you tell a reader that the technology is comparable to that of our world's Middle Ages, then they aren't going to be surprised when they learn that Wander was shot with a crossbow instead of a gun: it's what they would expect; they aren't going to be surprised when they see what Mono and Wander are wearing in the screenshot: it's what they would expect; they aren't going to be surprised that Wander traveled to the Forbidden Land by way of horse instead of car, and that his pursuers did likewise: it's what they would expect. Try to understand this concept: it's about establishing setting, not making a claim of what time period the game is set in and what planet it is set on. Ryu Kaze 17:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Ex-Nintendo Employee has provided a good compromise as far as terminology goes: "...comparable to that of pre-industrial iron age human development". Ryu Kaze 02:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Most certainly will be deleted forgive me for being so blunt but this cant be acceptable as one for Ueda's part he clearly stated and I think this has already been mentioned here, he responds to a question "where Inspiration came from" and he reply's he did not draw or clone from mythology.
I think you need to learn that what people say is true is not necessarily truth; for example, it's far too much of a coincidence that 'Dormin' happens to be 'Nimrod' spelled backwards and the Dormin's story happens to mirror parts of Nimrod's, regardless of what Ueda claims. Even so, we're not talking about that: what's being discussed is the general appearence of the world in the game. In the game, what we see is a world where humans are armed with swords as their primary weapon and ride on horses, and where the most high-tech projectile weapon seen is a crossbow. This means we can determine the minimum level of technology that exists here to state the setting. Yes, maybe they're all actually a bunch of cosplayers from modern-day Detroit who fell into a wormhole, but there's absolutely nothing to support that assertion and it doesn't change that the general level of development seen in the game is much lower.
Nobody is saying that the story is set on a medieval Earth, or that everything in the game is directly from European medieval technology including the archetecture. What is being said is the level of technology we see is consistant with the level of technology we had at that time; much as the compromise is saying that it's reminiscent of the iron age. Much like we might say Laputa: Castle in the Sky is reminiscent of late-Victorian fantasy technology or Steampunk: that doesn't mean that the leader of Pazu's country is Queen Victoria or that Pazu is English, only that the setting is consistant with the steampunk genre. Hrimfaxi 03:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, IIRC what Ueda actually said was that SotC draws from no single mythology, which is true; while there are aspects of some myths present [Nimrod / Dormin, the similarity of the Colossi to Golems regarding the signs that must be destroyed to stop them, the similarity of several Colossi to Mayan idols, the first Colossus being a minotaur and so on], the plot is based on no single mythology and instead creates one of its own influenced by several existing ones. In any case, Ueda's world is not entirely unique because it borrows obvious elements from our own; particularly, horses, humans, swords, crossbows, and longbows, as well as lizards, birds, trees, tortoises and so on. That is how we can make a statement on the level of technology represented; because these objects are from the real world. Unless you're seriously claiming Ueda somehow invented swords and there is no specific real-life era when swords, crossbows and horseback riding all appeared together, the statement that the setting is similar to that era is valid and requires no additional sourcing. Hrimfaxi 06:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Ryu you really need to calm down, I can understand if you’re angry at me challenging your edits but guess what this is wikipedia and in a community built project this is the result you’re going to get people who don’t agree with your views or your contributions. You’ve edited the section which I approve of this version. I have been very lenient and agreeable in letting some other things which I really don’t agree with. The fact of the matter is your speculating the argument you present of "why then not input cars existed" serves also to contradict your original argument. Listen I haven't to much time for this my summer vacation was actually my burial in collage work ^^'. And that means me going to have to be away for a while hopefully by then it would have been settled if onther member sees the same mistake you’re making. Oh and telling me "I bet you haven’t played the game Yuh Ha" is really hysterical but childish. Iam going to give you time to cool down you really need it, you seem way to driven on promoting some agenda which explains your deranged behaviour. In any case gotta go cya soon Kara Umi 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not be deliberately provocative or obnoxious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Kara, what? Seriously. "Lenient"? Your permission isn't required to ensure that the article is informative. This isn't about people being annoyed with you for disagreeing. This is about your arguments making no sense while you build a straw man to tear down in order to justify absurd accusations. Disagreements are going to happen, yes, but in a situation such as this, one person is going to be wrong while another is right. Given that you're throwing around claims that I'm trying to do exactly the opposite of what I have repeatedly explained to you that I am trying to do, it's a pretty darn good chance that you're the one in the wrong.
By the way, how exactly does my argument contradict itself when it remains consistent? Compare my first comment on the matter of the similar technological setting with my last comment:
First comment
"Shicksal's right. That line wasn't there because we're trying to write a fanfic. That line was there because we're trying to describe the setting for the reader. Without that sort of thing, how are they to know that this isn't set in the present day, and that Wander's just decided to use a horse instead of a car? The purpose of a setting section is to establish the setting."
Last comment
"Stop deleting content without even addressing what's actually been discussed. Let me reiterate this for you once again: no one is saying that the game is set in the Middle Ages. No one is saying it is set on Earth. ... Again, the sentence is not saying that the game is set in the Middle Ages or even on Earth. This information is purely for establishing an understanding of the setting for the reader. If you tell a reader that the technology is comparable to that of our world's Middle Ages, then they aren't going to be surprised when they learn that Wander was shot with a crossbow instead of a gun: it's what they would expect; they aren't going to be surprised when they see what Mono and Wander are wearing in the screenshot: it's what they would expect; they aren't going to be surprised that Wander traveled to the Forbidden Land by way of horse instead of car, and that his pursuers did likewise: it's what they would expect. Try to understand this concept: it's about establishing setting, not making a claim of what time period the game is set in and what planet it is set on."
This is consistency. Because it's consistent.
As for my comment regarding your experience with the game, your argument pretty much amounts to "We don't see horses in this game instead of cars, or swords and crossbows instead of guns"... because that is all that we have been claiming here. If you're disputing what we're claiming, there's not much else you could be saying. You're the one who somehow concluded that we're trying to use the article to write a fanfic in which this game is set on Earth during the Middle Ages. Again, try to understand the concept of establishing a sense of setting for a reader who has never heard of Shadow of the Colossus. Ryu Kaze 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see why there is any more of an argument- the article doesn't speculate by saying "the game takes place during", it merely states the level of technology shown in the game; this is encyclopedic. We're writing not about a time period, but about a specific setting- that is, the game features technology that correlates with the Iron Age, thus we see the horseback and crossbows. Again, it's not about pinning down a "time", but establishing a setting so that a reader who hasn't played the game can understand it. Ex-Nintendo Employee 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Centered around'

I've noted some objections to the term 'centered around' being correct. Two citations from dictionary.com[1]:

Dictionary.com usage note: 28. Although sometimes condemned for alleged illogicality, the phrases center about and center around have appeared in edited writing for more than a century to express the sense of gathering or collecting as if around a center: The objections center around the question of fiscal responsibility.

American Heritage Dictionary usage note: Usage Note: Traditionally, the verb center may be freely used with the prepositions on, upon, in, or at; but some language critics have denounced its use with around as illogical or physically impossible. But the fact that writers persist in using this phrase in sentences such as The discussion centered around the need for curriculum reform, a sentence that 71 percent of the Usage Panel accepts, suggests that many people perceive center around to best represent the true nature of what they are trying to say. Indeed, in an example like A storm of controversy centered around the king, the only appropriate choice seems to be around. Still, if one wishes to avoid the phrase center around, the phrase revolve around is available as an option. Since center can represent various relations involving having, finding, or turning about a center, the choice of a preposition depends on what is intended. There is ample evidence for usages with each preposition listed above. The Panel accepts all of these uses except the one with at. Seventy-seven percent reject the sentence The company has been centered at Atlanta for the last five years. See Usage Note at equal. Hrimfaxi 10:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Many (if not most) other game articles contain plot spoiler warnings

Most of the other game pages contain a warning for plot spoilers. I do not see why this page should be different from the majority of pages. I also do not think it is superior because I expect to be warned if it is a full divulgance of the story or a simple overview. For instance, I do not expect the back cover of a book to give away the entire story, just what it is generally about. I personaly made the mistake of reading the ending on this article when I did not want to, and while one could argue that I was simply careless or stupid, I ask, if saying that a section of the article is about the story is enough of a warning, why is there a spoiler warning template at all? Why do most other game article use it in an almost identical context? Why change the previous policy: is something on Wikipedia hurt by a spoiler warning? Is simple, minor (alleged) redundancy such a crime if it prevents (what I will call for lack of a better term) injury to a reader? I think this needs to be reexamened, and if you do think that a spoiler is truly unnessisary, they you should probably remove the spoiler warning in all instances of its occurance and perhaps disable the template itself. For now I am not personnaly planning to add a spoiler warning as I do not want an edit war more than anyone else, but I really think it should have one and the subject definately needs evaluation.

Also, I think that the fact that people frequently (relatively speaking) make the "mistake" of adding a spoiler warning ought to be telling about the decision not to include the warning and about how much sense it actually makes to users. -Oniamien

The use of spoiler warnings is contested. People are trying to remove it from every article, there's a request for comment around somewhere on it. As far as this article goes, isn't it obvious that there are going to be spoilers there? Bear in mind the section is titled "Story", not "Synopsis" or "Plot Overview". To be honest, though, Wikipedia's content disclaimer announces in big letters that articles contain spoilers and that should be enough. -- Steel 09:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Basically what Steel said. The subject has been in constant evaluation since people began using spoiler tags here. Many people think they're absurd given the content disclaimer, the encyclopedia's purpose to inform and the fact that no other professional encyclopedia (which is what we're trying to become) uses such tags. Of course, many others do not, and so there is conflict on the subject. Ryu Kaze 14:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
This is obviously an issue much larger than just this article but since we're here... Would it, then, be good (or, at least acceptable) to have a separate "Synopsis" section? I'm a regular Wikipedia user (read: fanboy) and was caught off-guard by the spoilers. Nklatt 20:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Colossi"

Colossi is an incorrect plural spelling for the word 'colossus' (see the Wiktionary entry: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Colossus), analogous to the frequently used incorrect plural spelling of the word 'octopus', 'octopi'. Its correct plural spelling is 'colossuses'.

The reason for the spelling seen in the game is likely either an artistic license, or a misconception on the part of the game's translator(s).

I find myself unable to add this piece of relevant info into the article without degrading its readability. Perhaps someone with a better grasp of the written word than myself would be inclined to add it?

Damn FAs, they're just so damn hard to improve. -FrostyBytes 10:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's generally held that both "colossi" and "colossuses" are a valid plural form of the word. In Latin, at the least, "colossi" may actually be the correct spelling, assuming — as many do — that it is a second declension Latin noun. Given that the game's developers gave each colossus a Latin title, it's probable that "colossi" was the intended spelling for the game. It should remain as such for this article, especially since it is a valid rendering of the word (and the spelling used invariably in the game itself). Ryu Kaze 12:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, dictionary.com says that "colossi" is the preferred plural... I should look into it more, I'm a strong advocate of "octopuses" over "octopi" , since the truly "correct" spelling is "octopodes" but that is terribly pedantic. How does Greek make "kolossus" plural? -JC 01:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
My Greek go-to guy says that "kolossos" plurals to "kolossoi". Either way, as the "colossi" of the game are their own unique creatures, I think for the article that the in-game spelling is the best fit, regardless of etymology. -mordicai. 21:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I'm inclined to agree, though I still think it'd be proper to add at least some reference to this matter of different plural spellings, perhaps something as little as the wikification of a single appropriate word. -FrostyBytes 11:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, on cursory glance, I don't see any easy wikilink to make that could side-step the issue. Even then, a semantics argument is only going to be of so much interest, especially when the verdict is still out on the "proper" pluralization. If colossi wasn't just as valid as colossuses, I could see the value of an aside, but I think as it stands there doesn't need to be any edit on the subject-- unless you can think of an elegent way to put it in without it sticking out like an extra left foot. -mordicai. 19:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Pre-Industrial Iron Age"

There has been quite a bit of discussion up above on this subject, but I think a new thread is due here. It seems that there might be a bit of a revert war brewing, & I'd like to head that off with a discussion here; best case scenario being that we can come to a conclusion on the subject.

Firstly, my opinion is (obviously, from my initial reversion) that the statement be included. I could be copacetic with the removal of "traditional" from "traditional fantasy world," but the fantasy world bussiness seems pretty straight forward to me. Giant colossi, talking gods, living shadows, magic swords... As to the issue of "pre-industrial iron age," I think the sentence is pretty clearly stating a level of comparative technology. It isn't saying, as there seems to have been confusion in the past, that it is set in a historical setting on Earth. If several editors are having trouble reading it that way, or disagree that it is reading that way, perhaps the diction does need an overhaul. To me, the whole sentence (how small a thing to have contention over!) adds much needed information to the "setting" part of the article. An observation about that setting is not "fan-fic" or any such. The terms are neutral & anthropological. --mordicai. 21:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


I agree I don’t personally think there’s anything wrong with it but the keyword there being "Personally" and as you and I don’t own wikipedia we have to acknowledge that this is a "two enemy camp situation" and the other half of the community thinks it would be best to remove the information reason being it seems to be unsourced (if one could please prove me wrong) and or unrelated. And the only way to solve these types of situation is to refer to the rules and in this case my friends I have to say camp number 1 wins in accordance with WP:V and adherence to the five pillars I remove the disputed section. And I am open for talk here always, thanks Singing guns 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


Everyone if I may add this is quoted from wiki rules section WP:V Please read all parties invloved. "Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.". That clearly states a source not a in game ref wich can be argued over and challanged which is the case, in such a case all editors must be Bold and take action, thank you Singing guns 18:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the thing is that "pre-industrial iron age" isn't anything more than succinct description. I think we can all agree with pre-industrial, yes? There are no cars, or gun, or asembly line made clothing or anything of that ilk, yes? Pre-industrial isn't a time, or a reference to the real world. It is a statement of technology. Same with iron age; we're not talking about Earth's Iron Age here, but rather a level of technology consistant with swords & arrows....which are the weapons we see in the game, yes? Everything in the game, in the setting as is shown, fits with the description "pre-industrial iron age." Which is the key here; description. Not a statement of some historical time period or anything like that. It is the use of anthropological terms to explain the world the game is set in.
See:
--mordicai. 01:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I am in agreement with keeping it. The game itself is reference enough to such a claim. It may be based on a Primary Resource (the game itself), but that's all you need when you're making a direct observation. It isn't considered "Original Research" , as there's no conclusions being drawn from it or such - it's just stating what style the game is in. Describing isn't the same thing as unsourced material :P -JC 08:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

How weird it is to me that this statement is so controversial that edit war after edit war is created by it. Anybody have any theories on why it is the source of so much argument? --mordicai. 21:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been an issue since before the article acquired the 'featured' status. I can only guess that to some people tying the game to a real historical period somehow seems insulting. Tani unit 06:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, that is the thing; it isn't being tied to a real time period; pre-industrial & iron age are descriptions, not times. If the terms were an attempt to place the game somewhen in the real world, I would probably agree with the objection-- but they are not. --mordicai. 13:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
You're preaching to the choir here. It isn't me who has a problem, i'm just theorising as to why people keep fighting over it. Some people just don't get the difference. Tani unit 20:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Colossi

So what happened to the list of colossi that I found so interesting? Pteren 06:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I made a table with the #, appearance, names of them but someone removed it.--Animasage 18:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I reuploaded it because I never got a message saying anything wrong with it.--Animasage 22:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Such things are usually shunned on in featured articles (primarily during their candidacies), so it was removed by Steel most likely to ensure nobody gets upset and thinks it's "trivia". — Deckiller 22:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Deckiller is quite right, this would have been killed in the FAC had we not removed it before. IIRC, it was removed because there was no official translation for the names and people were edit warring over spellings. -- Steel 22:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well if someone had said this the first time around I wouldn't have wasted my time thinking it was a glitch.--Animasage 22:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
They did. "(We tried this before. It didn't work.)" -JC 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I see.Pteren 13:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dormin=Nimrod?

I noticed that Dormin backwords is "Nimrod". It says in the Bible that Nimrod was the person who built the tower of Babel. Anyone else see a connection between this and the size of the Shrine of Worship? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.232.235.247 (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC).


I agree with you that Nimrod was probably inspiration towards the character of Dormin.

I think Dormin is a pun on Doorman, myself. 'Cause he sort of controlls the temple. 66.63.86.156 15:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


I think that Dormin is Nimrod, not just for the name, but because of many coincidences:

The biblical Nimrod was killed and cut on many pieces that had been spread through his land, almost the same as the 16 colossus that are pieces of Dormin's power.

After Nimrod's death (biblical), his wife Semiramis proclamed him the Sun God. In the game Wander talks to the sun light through a hole in the ceiling and it's the sun light that guides him to the colossus.

Nimrod (biblical) was represented much more taller than other people on ancient sumerian and accadian tables.

Nimrod (biblical) was represented with corns, simbol of strenght and power. Some believe that these corns are the ancient mark to represent the class of hunters. The same corns can be seen in the end of the game, when Wander become the shady colossus.

The garden in the top of the Sanctuary of Worship represents the Garden of Eden, the fruits up there decrease your life, a representation of the forbiden fruit in the book of Genesis.

The topografy of the terrain where the game is played make looks like some kind of natural catastrophe happened recently, like a "Great Flood" and caused the most of geografic accidents in this land. Nimrod lived 2 generations after these biblical event. Betum 10:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you're probably right. Japanese video game studios have a long-established fondness for Hebrew mythology and the Kabbalah. Influences and notions from biblical texts and other ancient belief systems are frequently mined for ideas for Japanese-made games in fantasy settings, to such an extent that American game developers are now beginning to ape the practise. For instance, witness Final Fantasy VII and the link between the character Sephiroth and the Kabbalic Sephirot. Kasreyn 02:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I havent been on for a long time and didn't have a login when I wrote the first entry of this Dormin=Nimrod? discussion so its nice to see some people responding to it.

The shrine of worship looks like it was unfinished. The entire world is not dry yet.(Look at the size of the ocean) The girl that he brought with him on Agro could have died in the flood. --Bochero 23:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 17th Colossus - Fake or True?

Come on people, share your thoughts! I have yet to beat the game totally, but if I were to find a 17th colossus I would be amazed. - Xfa

Sign with 4 Tildes. - !Malomeat 09:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Xfa. I have seen no evidence of a 17th colossus. You might be wondering why someone has reverted your edit, about now. The big reason I would thing is that Wikipedia is not a place for conjecture or rumor. Mentioning it here in the Talk page, as you did, was good, but it probably would have been best to post here first. If the rumor was true, or could be cited from a reliable source, it might warrent inclusion; asking on a talk page if someone can substantiate a rumor is better than posting it to the main article. Just something to chew on. --mordicai. 19:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been confirmed by both the creators and people checking the disc that there's no such thing. 125.239.16.170 04:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Why is the one column format better than two? Two columns takes less space and it stays as readable as the one column version. --Mika1h 15:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The amount of space two columns saves as opposed to one column is very small. One column is much more user friendly and is worth an extra six or so lines in the article. -- Steel 17:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shown in a movie

I saw The Pursuit of Happyness and I think I saw this game in a trailer, possibly the Don Cheadle-Adam Sandler film, Reign Over Me. Any verification?

Downloading now. Must see for myself. - !Malomeat 02:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes. They were fighting the 13th colossus. Pteren 06:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it's the 5th. - 201.10.18.76 11:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I was wrong.Pteren 01:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heroe's name, Wander?

I was wondering about the heroe's name. I KNOW it's not Wanda (Heaven forbid), but is it really Wander? I always thought he didn't actually have a name, and was only defined as "the wanderer" (or "Wander", because the japanese kind of suck in English). Anyways, I don't have the booklet or anything. Here is a quote from a Gamefaqs FAQ:
http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/ps2/file/shadow_of_the_colossus_plot.txt
"Q: So the main character's name is "Wander" then? A: Er, not exactly. You see, he doesn't have a name that we're aware of. The official UK website for Shadow of the Colossus says "It matters not. His efforts were not for the cause of creating a legend for himself" under "What is the wanderer's name?"
I'm on a school computer wich won't let me browse the flash website, so I can't check it out. So what do you think? Can we REALLY say his name is actually Wander, or are we just calling him that by general concenssus? (Not that there's anything wrong with that, as long as it's mentioned)
Same thing goes for Mono.
Happypal 04:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I forget exactly, but I think it's mentioned in the credits. -- Steel 12:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I read up, Mono is mentioned in the credits. I'm not sure about Wander though, and even if it is, if the voice credit if it is for Wander, the name, or Wander, "The wanderer"Happypal 13:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Kind of aside from the discussion, but it bears mentioning on the topic. It isn't that the Japanese "suck" at english; rather they have an entire scheme devouted to transcription- katakana. It is largely a phonetic transcription, but it does have its own rules, both official & unofficial, for encoding pronounciation & translation. Wanda is ワンダ-- first character "wa", second "n", third "da" (well, ta modified to da). --mordicai. 13:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
That is true. but what I meant by suck is not "wanda" instead of "Wander", but "Wander" instead of "Wanderer".
And on a side note, so let's not build on it, regardless of their writing system, the japanese kind of do suck in general in English.
I think it's more along the lines that they're far more liberal with English than we are, because for them it's more "something cool" or such. Thus, "Wander" instead of "Wanderer" is fine, since it sounds a bit better and doesn't make a lick of difference to the Japanese. He's listed in the US release's credits as "Wander" so it should be used as a name - even if it isn't truly his name, it's all we have to go by. -JC 05:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was Wanda and the Colossus because thats what all the early press said, but I just read something on GameFaqs from a trustworthy source that that was indeed an incorrect translation and that its either Wander or Wonder. I was totally going to go on a rant against this until I looked it up. Well so much for that! And BTW the genders of names change all the time. I know a girl named Clovis, and many masculine names in England are feminine in America like Leslie. Novaterata 05:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If "Wander" is in the English game, then it is "Wander" in the English Wikipedia. Same deal with Aeris in the Final Fantasy VII article. --Teggles 05:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Japanese suck at English? Somebody set up them the grammar? 164.58.80.30 21:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection

I noticed that if in the search "Wander and Giant Statue" is searched it will not redirect to this page. Seeing as how it's the Japanese name shouldn't it redirect here? Or is there a specific reason it does not? Darth harbl 06:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kafziel Talk 23:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I thought featured articles were supposed to be well written

I quote: "This confusion results from a failure to account for the Japanese language lacking an 'er' phonetic. A common compromise is to use an 'ah' syllable instead, in an effort to simulate a non-rhotic 'er' phonetic when transliterating foreign words into Japanese." Didn't anyone notice that "phonetic" isn't a noun? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.145.19.66 (talk) 12:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

How would you rephrase it? Also, making a generalization on one minor, perhaps subjective issue is very questionable. — Deckiller 13:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, the correct linguistic term in this case is "phoneme". If someone with a linguist's background can confirm, then we can simply substitute words. 216.52.69.217 14:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
–noun 5. (in Chinese writing) a written element that represents a sound and is used in combination with a radical to form a character. - dictionary.com. Assume this would apply to Japenese writing as well.212.56.97.238 14:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with the word "sound"? 14:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with using "critter" when you mean "dragonfly"?  ;) A more precise term exists, so a good encyclopedia should use that term. Especially when it can directly wikilink to the "phoneme" article for anybody who doesn't know the word already.216.52.69.217 16:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.52.69.217 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

But "phoneme" isn't necessarily what's meant here. Japanese doesn't just not have an "er" phoneme, it doesn't have any sound (or phone if you want to use the technical term) that sounds like "er". I also don't see how substituting an "ah" sound for an "er" sound can be called either a compromise or a "simulation of a non-rhotic 'er'" (which sounds like a contradiction in terms). --85.178.37.83 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Here is what was meant: The creator of the game, who is a Japanese person, created the character and named him "Wander". However, the Japanese language doesn't have an "-er" phone, phoneme, phonetic, sound, syllable, or whatever you want to call it. So they use a the "ah" phone, which gives the effect of an English pronunciation of "Wander" with a non-rhotic "er" phone. That is to say, it is pronounced as someone from London UK or Tenessee USA would. Is this still not clear? This is coming from someone who considers US Midwestern English to be the standard, where the "er" at the end of Wander would be pronounced with a fully rhotic R. Perhaps that's the source of the confusion. 04:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dormin and the Royal 'We'

In the article, Dormin is referred to using the third person plural, i.e., they. Is this because when Dormin speaks it refers to itself using 'we'? I was under the impression that Dormin was a single entity that used the Royal 'We'(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_we) when referring to itself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 41.204.46.191 (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

And your point is, God in the Quran refers to himself as "We" plenty of times. The objective meaning is -dido- there is no objective meaning its just takin into context.
What?
I'm confused also... however, to respond to the original question: Dormin is plural, as shown on one of the official web pages (I think the EU one?), especially considering the fact that Dormin has a duo-voice. -JC 10:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dormin as Lucifer

Apart from the obvious figure of the horned shadow, could the concept of Dormin be based on Luciferian imagery? Note that Dormin first "appears" to Wander in the form of a light from above, as per famous Satanic "deception". In fact the voice could either be construed as directly demonic or ironically, even that of God given its source. When Dormin finally takes form, it appears as though they have deceived Wander into sacrificing his "soul" in his deal to save Mono.

Franck Drake 15:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something Extra for the spoilers...

Both the opening and final cinematic elements of the game involve a hawk(?) or other bird of prey flying against a darkened sky. I might also suggest that it actually makes the game seem like a loop as the intro sequence plays right after the ending... Franck Drake 15:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suck...

This game looks like it sucks. It probably does not, but just by reading the first article no dungeons, towns, people or monsters, this game dosn't look that great... --TheGreenLink 19:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that this talk page is for discussing the article and improvements to the article. This is not the place to discuss the game itself. ShadowHalo 19:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Literal translation of Kyozou

Yesterday I tried to offer a more literal translation of the Japanese title Wanda to Kyozou, which would be "Wander and Giant Statue". That is literally what kyozou means. It's a compound of two kanji- kyo, meaning huge/giant/immense etc. and zou which in this context means statue. I don't know if my edit was reverted because someone objected to it, or if it was simply lost in the vandalism/rv mess. If anyone has any objections, I'd like to hear them. Druff 20:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, since no one spoke up, I'm going to edit it again. Please leave any future objections here. Druff 04:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards Box

Wouldn't it be easier to read and better looking to make a table of road up awarrds and major reviews next to the reception section than have a crushed together hard to read paragraph that lists mostly nominations? Notice that other games like Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and Twilight Princess have boxes that are alot clearer for awards to get the idea. Stabby Joe 11:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to them, but I know other editors are against them. Regardless, I'd rather we didn't use "but other articles which aren't FAs use them!" as an argument. – Steel 12:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/h/a/Talk%7EShadow_of_the_Colossus_d10f.html"