Talk:Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Proper sourcing

To all editors that would like to add new information about the new game, please be sure to add proper citation along with your new content. Simply stating in the edit summary or in the sentence that it was in a recent or new magazine is only part of the information needed for proper sourcing. Additional information required is the name of the magazine, the issue #, and the publication date. In addition to that, other information that would be nice to have is the name of the article or section in the magazine, the page #s, and/or the name of the article writer. There are two reasons behind this.

  1. Proper sourcing and citation add credibility to the information and lets the uninformed reader know the information is factual and reliable.
  2. It also is required to make it to Good Article and Featured Article, which several of us would like to see in order to add the new games into the Kingdom Hearts Featured Topic. Without these articles at a level of quality of at least Good Article some time after they're released, the topic will be delisted.

The extra information is appreciated and we hope more is found, but without proper sourcing, we can't really have it in the article per WP:CITE. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

Would this count as proper sourcing? (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=JDpSSuipSB4) Jammi568 13:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Not inclined to think so. Due to their volatile nature, sites like YT can't be used, and aren't considered realible. Just go directly to KHInsider and use that site as a source.HadesDragon 15:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's what i was thinking about. The site itself, rather then the go between. Jammi568 14:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Here's the interview link if anyone feels like adding in the new content. I don't think I'll have time today. Here's the citation for it too, just copy and paste. I wish they mentioned were the interview was from though.
<ref name="KHI-NI">{{cite web| url = http://www.khinsider.com/news/nomura-interview.html| title = KHInsider - Nomura Interview| publisher = Kingdom Hearts Insider| accessdate = 2007-10-20}}</ref> (Guyinblack25 talk 15:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] GameSpot

Sorry to say this, but it needs to be cleared up: GameSpot, IGN, EGM, etc, NONE of those are reliable sources when it comes to international releases and exports to other regions, mainly because their "confirmations" are either speculation or wishful thinking. If it helps, these 4 are the most reliable sources we can use regarding any new news of releases: SquareEnix themselves; Famitsu; V-Jump; Gamaga. So lets stop this nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.125 (talk) 02:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Gamespot is one of the reliabale sources according to wikipedia guidelines so it may be used however please do not post any info not confirmed by SE.-Metalocalypse —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalocalypse (talk • contribs) 15:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, after the recent controversy and mass work-leave rumors, I think its a time we re-consider IF Gamespot truly is a reliable source... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.35.2 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Any idea wtf "358/2 Days" is supposed to mean or refer to? --SeizureDog 09:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Damnit people, this isn't a forum question. This is the second time I've had this happen in an article. My question is something the article fails to address and needs to if possible. So improve the article and figure out what the title means >:(--SeizureDog 16:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know there has been no information released on what the title actually means. I, naturally, have speculation, but Square is trying to keep as much info about the game quiet as possible. As soon as information has been released in a published source about the meaning of the title, I'll be sure to add it to the article. For now all we can do is guess... sorry I can't be of more help. ^.~ Zemalia 17:01, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
"The title was done on purpose as a code, you can only understand it after beating the game. The word Day, is attached and the progress of the game is to show how the Organization came to be, as well as the daily life of the Organization XIII. They are always faced with the duty from a place, and then have to return. The game will focus around Roxas, who is a member of the Organization. It will be an adventure game, repetition is also one of the concepts of the game." ' 19:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I first read it as THREE HUNDRED FIFTY EIGHT DIVIDED BY 2 DAYS and then I thought it was stupid =/ But seriously, only to figure out the title AFTER beating the game is just... Lame. This will be very hard to explain to people, as the only way to say it is "Oh, well, you figure out the title after beating the game without knowing what the game is about... Kingdom Hearts at least." 209.91.61.223 04:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's a bit presumptuous to not expect more details as it gets closer to the release date. Besides, once the name explanation is found, then we'll put it up. No need to keep people in the dark. (Guyinblack25 talk 12:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC))

THIS SHOULD CLEAR THINGS UP well, i have a theory that the idea of 358/2 is that the 358 stands for how long Roxas was in the organisation. Sora was asleep for a year. Yes, i know 358 days isnt a year, but, is it not a fact that Roxas was in twilight town for around a week after he was beaten by Riku at the start of the game? 358+7=365, theres your year. And the /2 would be that because Roxas is Sora's Nobody, their would share a connection, yes? Ah, i feel proud since i think i have it figured out, lol. teehee, im only 12 too ^-^.21:07, 12 December 2007

That's some pretty good deducing. Though we can't really put anything like that in the article because any theory we come up with, not matter how likely or unlikely, is original research. We have to wait for a news article, press release or developer interview to come along to say it. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

well what the heck does that / thing represent63.166.254.137 (talk) 01:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The title "358/2 days" is read as "Three-Five-Eight Days over Two". The / represents "over". (Guyinblack25 talk 03:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Category tag

This is starting to get a bit out of hand. Before we start changing the categories again, we're going to talk about it here. Its getting out of hand. I think I might bring a third party in on the matter. No need for harsh language, so let's be reasonable about this. Zemalia 15:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious. Is there a reason why a category such as Category: Nintendo DS-only games exist? It would be pretty redundant having these "-only" categories. A link to the discussion is fine too. — Blue。 15:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just passing through from the VG project. First, yes the only categories are stupid and a mess and need sorting out. But until they are the following applies to this article. WP:SUBCAT#Secondary_categorization_rule. Or in plain English, both categories stay. - X201 16:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
They may be a mess at times but lookin' at a category that has games from ALL systems can be too clutterin' and have a category that is system exclusive helps clean-up the search. That's just my opinion. --Crash Underride 16:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. There is a definite place for a category that lists games that are exclusive to the DS but as I understand it the Category software just isn't up to the job of putting an article into multiple groups from one category command on the article. For every category that an article should appear in it needs a separate category command. This game should be in both categories, so needs two commands. - X201 16:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the 2 category command. --Crash Underride 16:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
After scanning through the WP:VG talk archives, this topic apparently has been brought up multiple times. Here are some discussions I found about it, nothing definitive though. In order from oldest to newest. 1, 2, 3. It doesn't seem that definite consensus has been reached, though there seem to be a number of people that feel there are not needed. I did a quick glance through Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Archive debates and didn't really find anything there, but I may have missed some stuff. For now it seems we have to follow the "Secondary categorization rule" until a consensus about needing both categories is reached. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC))
Also, given the scope of this discussion, perhaps we should move this discussion to the Video game Project talk page. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC))
I hate having to look through categories to find various games for the DS. What reason is there to not have both categories? They're both apt categories, nothing - literally nothing - is harmed, and it's made more convenient for people navigating the Wiki. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I'm not sure about Birth by Sleep considering that Nomura stated the battle system changed, but he said nothing about 358... So...wouldn't it be a good idea to add a gameplay screenshot, depicting the aspect of playing as an Organization member other than Roxas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.35.2 (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure, things have been pretty quiet on the three game as of late. Perhaps a screenshot wouldn't be a bad idea now. I'll look into it and see if there's a suitable image. If it does get outdated, we'll just upload over it or delete the old image. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC))
I remember seeing a few very nice, full-quality, actual-size screenshots somewhere, but I can't seem to find them now. I have found some that might work, but they're watermarked by Famitsu.com.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 23:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
According to some kingdom hearts sites run by fans there is supposed to be more info released mid-December. Maybe we can get some new screens then? I approve of the idea of a screenshot for sure, since we have more than a vague idea of what the gameplay is going to be like. Zemalia (talk) 00:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

KHInsider has a whole heap of suitable screens in one of their older updates, which marks the TGS events.

[edit] Release date

Does anyone know when this game comes out? The article does not mention this and some people might want to know. --Prettywhitekitty (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Prettywhitekitty

Currently, Square Enix has not set a release date for this game or any of the other KH games. There are a group of editors that have been trying to keep the articles about the new KH games as current as possible. Once release dates are officially set, the articles should be updated soon after. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

ACtually,in Jump Festa 2008, it is confirmed to have a Summer 2008 release in Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.155.209 (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If the release date has been confirmed, please provide a source or link of some kind. Because the Famitus article I just checked listed the the release date as undetermined, I changed it back to TBA in the article. So without any source for the release date, we need to list the TBA as the most current source still has no confirmed release date. If anyone finds a source, please let us know or be bold and change it back along with the source. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Something to keep an eye out for...

On Dec 22 the game will be available for play at Jump Festa08. Hopefully we'll be able to score some info or reviews. In the mean time, should we add this piece of info to the article? Zemalia (talk) 00:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a piece for the development section. I say find sources and then add it. — Blue。 00:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The Official website has a statement to that effect posted. I figured it would be better to source it from an article after the fact rather than a notice on the site that could go away after the date. Should we still add it in? (Guyinblack25 talk 01:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC))

FoxyWolfGirl (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)I was wondering when Kingdom Hearts 358/2 days would come out in America? And Guyinblack25 no, I don`t think we sould add it untill after the date.FoxyWolfGirl (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Currently, there is no US release date set. Technically, Square Enix has not even announced that the game will be released anywhere outside of Japan. All we know is that they've expressed plans to release it in other territories. So sorry, we don't have any other confirmed info. If you hear otherwise, let us know. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Summer Release

Just so there shouldn't be any uber thuper arguing, several sources claim the Festa trailers confirmed this game's release for Summer 08 (jap). If anyone has anything that says otherwise, or a different date specified, just put it here for discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.25.23 (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are these "several sources"? I don't have a problem with filling the release date, but at least we'll need a published source so it can be verifiable. Until then, we can't just put "claim"ed dates in the article. — Blue。 13:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
The Square Enix official website for the game, which was updated after Jump Festa, and this Famitsu article both say undecided/unannounced. That's why I first removed the Summer 08 and posted why under #Release date. If there are citeable sources that say otherwise, let us know and we'll put it up there. Though with both Square and Famitsu saying unannounced, I'd say at least three other sources would be needed. Mainly because if the company producing it still says unannounced, that's hard to dispute. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

Um, here's some sites that reported on it from the floor (Closed Theater). I'm still looking into the hard-source of it, but it should fill you over: http://www.kh2.co.uk/?kh358=Information / http://www.khinsider.com/latest/jf2008-kh-358-2-days-gets-release-date.html / http://mobile.qj.net/Jump-Festa-2008-Kingdom-Hearts-Coded-258-2-Days-Birth-by-Sleep-details/pg/49/aid/110187 / There's like...a dozen other sites that say the same thing, but I don't think you want me to put them all up. :< Besides, I doubt over a dozen sites would all be pulling crap out of their ass all at the exact same time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.25.23 (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen the first two sites, but couldn't use them because they are fan sites. We can only use fan sites for translated interviews. The third one looks alright, though I've never heard of them before they look to be owned by a company and is not just a privately owned and operated fan site. You mentioned some other sites, if they aren't fan sites go ahead and list some more. It's not like we don't believe the information, we're just bound by Wikipedia's guidelines to properly cite it.
While we're on the topic, do you know of some similar sites that list the model of phone for KH coded. The mobile.qj.net lists it, but I think an extra site or two would be great for citations in the KH coded page. Thanks for your help. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC))
< As I was saying, all of this information was coming directly from the floor, so, if you want "hardcore" evidence, you'd have to be there. JF08 was also the time that Nintendo put up their DS Roster, and 358/2 was one of the games listed. Now, concerning coded, all I know is that is sleighed for an 08 release, no seasons mentioned, and BBS as simply a "Work in Progress." And coded, from what I remember, was confirmed for FOMA, and thats all I can say. Now, if you want UBER hardcore printed stuffs confirming this, this is the best source I can give...though I have NO idea how to navigate it...http://ffkh.onlinfo.net/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.25.23 (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
It's not like we need hardcore, accurate, official evidence. We simply need something that is verifiable. Something that the average reader can get themselves and verify that the information listed in the article matches up with what's in the source. Per WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."
That's one of the reasons why we've been sticklers about the new content. The other is that these articles will have to be brought up to at least Good Article status to maintain the Kingdom Hearts FT.
Though I wouldn't worry too much about adding it in right now. The information will reach the major gaming websites and they'll eventually be an ample amount of sources to verify the release date and everything else. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC))

Hopefully this will be a suitable compromise. I listed the release date as 2008. Basically we have the official Square Enix site and a Famitsu article stating unannounced, and numerous fan sites and a mobile.qj.net article stating Summer 2008. I was also able to find an IGN article that listed 2008. Since there is conflicting information, I think the prudent thing to do is list it simply as 2008 because it looks to be the middle ground. Hopefully more articles will pop up in the near future that will clear this up. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Regarding Gamespot...AGAIN

I hate going back to this subject, but do I need to remind everyone of their so-called "confirmation" regarding the first two Final Mix games, along with god-knows what? So far, regarding games on Wikipedia, we've always used credible information and official sources from developers regarding anything. Now, other than Gamespot, which has quite the shaky history, DO we have any sources? OFFICIAL, REAL sources? No, we don't! Apparently, everyone here is willing to take anything as long as it fulfills their desires! Well, sorry to break the hearts, but we make no unnecessary additions unless we get proper sources. GameSpot, ISN'T a proper source. Oh, wait, something says it IS?! Well, golly gee; haven't you ever heard of "thinking for yourself", or "common sense?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.25.23 (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would first like to state that I assume this is the same editor (70.188.24.125) that has been removing the same reference tag for some time now. Please correct me if I am wrong.
As previously stated, the WikiProject Video games has reached a consensus stating that GameSpot is a reliable source. If you wish to contest this, this is not the proper way to go about that. This way will probably get your IP address blocked, which I don't think you want to happen and neither does anyone else.
Regarding official sources, per WP:VERIFY- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If we can verify that something, that dictates that it can be included. Does this mean that we indiscriminately include whatever we can find? No, we use a little "common sense" along with it. WP:Verify also states- "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources." Third party in this case means not related to Square Enix.
Once again, if you don't think Gamespot is a reliable third party source, then make a case to the VG Project. Otherwise, you edits can and probably will be construed as disruptive, which will lead to your IP being blocked. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

I wont and refuse to make a case because I know for certain that a type of loophole will be used against my argument, and they will continue to sit with their decision. This is why I'm taking this said course of action, to let you guys think for yourselves, because right now, you aren't thinking at all. Wikipedia's reliability is declining daily, and not just from my observation. One of the reasons is that people here take their "jobs" too seriously. For one, I know none of you get paid to do what you're doing right now, so why bother working so hard on information that is neither true nor verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.25.23 (talk) 06:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, I've said it once and I'll say it again. Doing that will eventually lead to being block. I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but your contribution history along with your continual refusal paint a picture of disruptive behavior targeted at a small group of related article. I would also like to point out that your comments suggesting that we are mindless cogs in a defunct machine are borderline personal attacks, and do not help make the above mentioned picture look any better.
If you feel you have reason to believe that GameSpot is not a reliable source, do the research, and explain/show to the VG Project why. This has been explained to you on several occassions; here and on this talk page. If you feel your current argument is not solid enough, you research some more and make it stronger if possible. I personally have been using GameSpot and IGN for years before I even started editing on Wikipedia. While they have their share of mistakes, so does every news organization regardless of the subject they report on. Because of this, I (and others) feel they are overall reliable for what they do. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC))

Well, as it stands, it looks like you aren't capable of thinking for yourself. I am not changing my course of action. The only real title that has been confirmed outside Japan is Coded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.25.23 (talk • contribs) 04:23, January 23, 2008

With all due respect, you have been warned and suggested alternate methods to go about this. Please stop or action will sought against. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC))
I do have to agree with 70.188.25.23 that Gamespot (sorry for the abbreviation, but 'LOL') is hardly a reliable source. Everyone in the gaming world knows this, and I'm shocked to discover the VGproject actually considers it 'reliable'. The funny thing is, it's evident that the main editors are picking and choosing to decide when they want it to be a valid source or not. There have been many discussions on other pages about not putting in content (usually release dates) confirmed by Gamespot, because Gamespot is apparently not reliable. Yet in other places (namely here), this is totally contradicted and suddenly Gamespot is a somewhat infallible source for information. The contradictions over weather it is or isn't reliable are seriously confusing me, and although I don't think 70.188.25.23 is approaching things quite in the right way, they still have very valid points.212.219.254.158 (talk) 09:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
No one is saying the point isn't valid, nor are we say GameSpot is infallible. However, what we are saying is that GameSpot is one of the more reliable sources we have. Do they get information wrong sometimes? Yes, but what news publication doesn't? The fact of the matter is they get it right most of the time and that is the basis for them being a reliable source. In regard to the other discussions you mentioned, there have been numerous discussion about using and not using release dates from almost all gaming news website; most of them referring to older games in the 80s and 90s. If you would like clarification on such a matter I would suggest asking at the Video game Project talk page. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC))

Accidentally posted information =/= made up information and sources. Straighten your story, nubby.

[edit] Updated Screenshot

The current screenshot is a dated one from an earlier version of the game. I think we ought to update it. Yay or nay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.37 (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, something like this is always tricky when dealing with unreleased games. I say we keep it until the game is released. I doubt the gameplay and graphics will change significantly from this version to the final release. And if it does, we can always move the current one to the "Development" section as a pre-release screen shot to help illustrate any changes. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

It's already changed significantly in terms of the interface. Besides, the BBS screen got changed, right? Here, check it: http://www.forever-fantasy.net/modules/4nAlbum/album/kh358/images/december_famitsu_03.jpg It's the same thing, only with an updated interface. It's beneficial to keep with the times, yo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.37 (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

We're probably ok. If we remove the image from the article, it'll get deleted. It'll be easier to keep it in the article and move it to the development section once actual final screen shots are available. Also, images with digital watermarks are discouraged.
Regarding the BBS screen shot, that was added in March and was the first one added. To be honest, I'm surprised it hasn't been removed because of the digital watermark. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC))

They are the only high quality ones available. You gotta make do what with ya got. =/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.24.37 (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)