Talk:We Love Katamari

Title?

If the ♥ symbol can be used in the redirect title, shouldn't it be able to be used in the main article title? I'm going to try making a test topic just to be sure, then I'm moving the article to "We ♥ Katamari". Eszett 00:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

No you aren't. Symbols such as that are not supposed to be used. They don't appear correctly on some browsers. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

The heart is hardly distinguishable in Arial on the default text size in Firefox. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 06:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Gotcha. I never touched it. Eszett 11:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The heart symbol is part of WGL4, which means it should be available on all Windows platforms, and I believe it's also available on Mac and Linux. We already have an article at I ♥ Huckabees. It should be OK to use. -- Curps 22:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem here are the browsers, they change unicode to punycode (like with certain control characters ' ( ) & ). Unicode URLs work fine in Safari, but not in other browsers like IE. Pasting "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_♥_Katamari" in your URL bar will work just fine. Oh, and the escape sequece for the heart is "♥" .Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the one who moved the article: sorry if this disrupted things. I saw the {{wrongtitle}} notice and thought "Well, that's certainly easy enough to fix."

But why does this article need to be "We Love Katamari" while the article I ♥ Huckabees seems to be doing just fine? There are other problems with pasting Wikipedia article names as URLs, anyway, like the fact that you have to change spaces to underscores. RSpeer 16:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No you don't. It does that automatically. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Link, can you point to the relevant policy? Your opinion that the "heart" symbol doesn't belong in the title seems inconsistent with the current Wikipedia trend of using Unicode wherever possible, especially when it eliminates "wrongtitle" tags. RSpeer 23:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It is general practice to not use symbols that are not understood by some browsers. Regardless, they own the copyright for "We Love Katamari", not "We <3 Katamari". It is not my opinion that using symbols is disadvantageous to many people, that is fact, and wrongtitle is not in place until someone figures out how to make the symbol, it is there to let articles have a wrong title for the sake of other browsers. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. It's 2005; I haven't used a computer that had trouble with unicode symbols in years. This is not an unreasonable expectation, and any problems would be easily solved by redirects anyway. --Peter Farago 01:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to say that some BROWSERS do not support unicode symbols because yours doesn't? I'm sorry, I guess I didn't realize you represent existence. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The current generation of browsers, as well as the last several generations, all support unicode [1]. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 14:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

So, We Love Katamari has to be the only article on Wikipedia that ignores this policy? - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure which policy you're referring to. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Be careful with special characters only speaks against the use of |, +, {, }, [ and ] which have special meaning in the wiki URL syntax. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) has nothing to say on the matter. Wikipedia:Unicode, which has been through extensive discussion, defends the use of Unicode here. --Peter Farago 16:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that the unicode symbol does not work on some browsers - someone cited IE. Also, you should also realize that Namco owns the copyright for "We Love Katamari", not "We (heart symbol) Katamari". It is recommended to not use unicode, and We Love Katamari is as legitimate as what you want. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's continue this conversation at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Typography in Article Titles. --Peter Farago 18:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It's no longer a matter of unicode; the copyright shows the name of the game to be We Love Katamari. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed "Unicode" from the discussion title, since it can apply to other punctuation as well. Please throw your two cents in where they can be seen and replied to by a larger and more relevant group. --Peter Farago 18:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a unicode problem is irrelevant now, considering Namco copyrighted "We Love Katamari", sans the heart. If it is a unicode problem, it won't matter, as either way, the title remains the same. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to US Trademark #76642305 (fixed link, should not expire). I am moving the page back to its original location. --Peter Farago 19:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to the game's boxart. So, Namco got it wrong, and the US patent office got it right? They couldn't be mistaken in thinking that they owned the copyright of the game with the symbol based on the title, right? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. Do you mean this boxart, the same as featured in the article? --Peter Farago 15:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course I mean that boxart. But when I'm talking about copyright information, would it be silly to assume that I meant the copyright information? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Your point eludes me. Copyright information does not apply to product names and slogans. The heart is used in the box art, it is identified in the U.S. trademark, the use of unicode is a non-issue, and the policy you claimed that it violates does not exist. If you still feel you have a point to make, I invite you to do so on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions or to submit a Request for Arbitration. For my part, I consider my point made and the discussion concluded. --Peter Farago 01:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreeing with Peter. --Poiso 1:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Soundtrack

A Link to the Past, I don't think it's a good idea to move the soundtrack to a separate page. Unless a particular music album is well-known or critically acclaimed, it doesn't have much potential to become encyclopedic. The We Love Katamari article is stubby enough as it is, and I don't see reason to split off content from it yet. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 04:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The fact that it'll be shorter is no good argument. You don't add content to make it big, you add content to make it good. This is about the video game, not the separate soundtrack. Katamari Damacy's soundtrack has its own soundtrack article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The soundtrack is directly related to the video game; it's not something that people reference without knowledge of the game it came from. Articles on specific music albums are generally avoided because there's a limit to how comprehensive the article can become without turning into fancruft. How much can you really write about the album? --Poiuyt Man ^talk 06:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It just looks worse with it, for one. If you want this on there, there shouldn't be an infobox. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it might not be necessary to include the soundtrack listing at all, even as a separate article. There's already an external link at the bottom that shows the soundtrack listing. Wikipedia doesn't need to duplicate it. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 06:41, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I have to go with Poiuyt Man on this, there is no need for a seperate article for the soundtrack alone. Havok (T/C) 08:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Just like there is an article about King of All Cosmos, there should be an article for a separate product. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that article's necessary either, since much of the information is already covered in Katamari Damacy. Maybe if the character appeared in more than two games it would be justified. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 20:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I actually owned the soundtrack and listened to it regularly for several months before even seeing the game. I'm a little odd, though. :) --NeuronExMachina 08:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Huh, I arrived at that same conclusion independently. I merged the contents of King of All Cosmos into Katamari Damacy and We Love Katamari, without seeing this page. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The Machine

The Machine section is ridiculous. It's a reference to what is, essentially, a spoof article. The "genius invention" is more or less the common technique of rubber banding combined with an oscilating fan. It's stupid and adds nothing to the article. Is there any reason it shouldn't be removed?