Talk:Albert Odyssey: Legend of Eldean
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Albert Odyssey: Legend of Eldean article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find video game sources: "Albert Odyssey: Legend of Eldean" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk |
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Merger proposal
editI'm proposing that Albert Odyssey 2: Jashin no Taidou be merged into this article. Albert Odyssey 2 is a subject which I'd ordinarily propose for deletion from Wikipedia: a game released only in Japan, with no claim to notability, and no references. Moreover, most of its content is blatantly copy-and-pasted from Albert Odyssey. However, it is part of the same series as Albert Odyssey: Legend of Eldean, so some content from Albert Odyssey 2: Jashin no Taidou could be of use in this article for historical context. What I propose is that we take the following from Albert Odyssey 2: Jashin no Taidou and put it in a new section of this article, titled "Albert Odyssey series":
Albert Odyssey 2: Jashin no Taidou (アルバートオデッセイ2 邪神の胎動, Aruberto Odesei Tsu Jashin no Taidou, lit. Albert Odyssey 2: Sign of the Devil) is a tactical role-playing video game for the Super Famicom, released in December 1994. It is set ten years after Albert Odyssey and follows the story of Dean, a young warrior who is enthralled by the exploits of the hero Albert. Setting off on a journey to investigate the conflict, Dean becomes entangled in an adventure of his own while meeting characters from the previous game. The size of many battlefields, as well as the number of enemies represented, has been reduced in comparison to Albert Odyssey.
A briefing like this carries little threat of editors trying to expand it, the way they expanded Albert Odyssey 2: Jashin no Taidou using copy-and-paste, because it's just a small section of an article, not a standalone stub.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
- Again, I'm not against the merging, but the target should be Albert Odyssey which should become a series article as it will be dealing with multiple titles. As such the common term people will look for in any of them will be Albert Odyssey.∞陣内Jinnai 17:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Albert Odyssey: Legend of Eldean. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160312134122/http://www.gamefaqs.com/saturn/196574-albert-odyssey-legend-of-eldean/data to http://www.gamefaqs.com/saturn/196574-albert-odyssey-legend-of-eldean/data
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.workingdesigns.com/museum/saturn/albert_odyssey/reviews/ao-egm.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.workingdesigns.com/museum/saturn/albert_odyssey/reviews/ao-ginf.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.workingdesigns.com/museum/saturn/albert_odyssey/reviews/ao-gmpro.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.workingdesigns.com/museum/saturn/albert_odyssey/reviews/ao-gmplr.htm
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.workingdesigns.com/museum/saturn/albert_odyssey/reviews/ao-gmfan.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Overall reception
editAfter repeatedly trying to change the overview of the game's critical reception to "mixed reviews" in spite of this obviously contradicting the sourced content in that section, Sergecross73 removed the overview entirely with the edit summary "that's WP:OR then. Please discuss on talk page and only re-add if you've got a source for its overall western reception".
Obvious question for Sergecross73: If any assessment of a game's overall reception is OR if it doesn't have a direct source, then why were you adding an assessment of the game's overall reception without any source in the first place? Martin IIIa (talk) 20:29, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's fine if it's obvious and not if it's contentious, simple as that. As we cannot agree, neither should be in there unless/until there is a source or consensus on how to proceed.
- I disagree conceptually as well, for the record. I don't know you can think your wording ("middling") is optimal when it immediately requires to point out an exception to the reader in the following sentence (EGMs positive review). It's terrible writing. And that's not even addressing the 91% review also listed. That's 2 exceptions with only an handful of reviews listed. "Mixed" requires no exceptions, but again, nothing at all would be better than "middling" in this current reception section.
- Your turn. Why did you yet again re-add content that is both being challenged and unsourced? Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)