Jump to content

Talk:Ace Combat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 50.75.39.166 (talk) at 19:16, 22 March 2023 (→Aircraft list: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconVideo games C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
A request for a screenshot has been made to help better illustrate the article. (VG images department)
Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Untitled

I think there needs to be a page to cover the first Ace Combat (Air Combat) as there isn't anything about that game. Nonetheless, it deserves its own page apart from the series. --deadkid_dk 08:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I wish someone with extensive knowledge of the first game could make an entry for Air Combat. --angst72 22:05, 15 March 2006

I agree, we've added alot of information to the Wikipedia, i thin k we should have Disambiguation page with all AC articles, including the countries and the ADF-01. -- Stuka22:01, 25 March

I agree with deadkid, somebody should cover Air Combat, if they can find a way to.

Deletion Spree

some one has been going on rampant with PfDs. Stop it. Many of articles are many Paragraphs long and have enough info to appeal to the common Wikipedian. I've checked his profile; all the edits he's done have been AfDs or PfDs. Don't give into him. -- Stuka2 19:39, 10 April 2006

Squadrons & Wings

Is this section strictly nesseasary? It just sounds like these sins and saints people promoting themselves--Josquius 16:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinionated?

'Hardcore fans of the series consider this one of the best games in the series though' 'Hardcore fans on the series consider the US version of the game to be the worst game in the series.'

I'm new to wikipedia but this seems a pretty opionated article to me. I'm not sure who all the hardcore gamers are but without any sources this does seem pretty opionated to me. (But then, I am a total n00b) 82.19.26.192 09:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Maria 17th September[reply]

Thanks for catching that, I've removed them. _dk 09:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Found another 'Ace Combat 2 is seen by many as the best of the Ace Combat games on the PlayStation' might try deleting it if everyone's ok with it. 82.19.26.192 09:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)Maria 17th September[reply]

I'm also unfamilar with official wikipedia guidelines, but it seems to me that the current section labeled "Music" is highly opinionated. There are no citations, and lines like 'are considered to be among the most evocative musical themes ever produced for a video game.' seem excessive to me for wikipedia. The entire section sounds like an opinion. 68.114.106.192 08:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I suggest we edit that, too. Zaku Two 22:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I had a go at making it sound more NPOV but I am a n00b and may have done it completely wrong so feel free to change it if I have. Mazten 11:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Maria 08/08/06[reply]

"More information on this new title can be found at IGN.com"

Why is there a link to IGN for information about this game when there is a Wiki article on it? Was this an IGN shill pimping their website?

Table at the bottom of the page

Could someone add a " | " between Belka and Erusea in the table? Thanks.

How about adding a timeline

Fuel

Why after AC3 or AC2 (I forgot which one it was) did they get rid of fuel gauges. I know they sucked but it made it more realistic. So anybody know how an aircraft can fly without any fuel. One more thing why isn't there an article on the X49 Night Raven, Electrosphere has something on it why don't we?Sam ov the blue sand 17:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In essence the newer games do have fuel gauges in a way, the mission timers could be considered to create the same limitation as limited fuel. Besides, I doubt Namco cares about realism. As for the X49 Night Raven, consider how hard it is to keep the pages for the existing aircraft here (ADF-01, X-02, ect.) It seems nearly every month someone proposes one of them be deleted, merged, or something of the sort. Talk to those people first before attempting to make something they'll just remove.Cbale2000 17:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The assertion of realism in a shooter is quite silly. The game is a flight-shooter, originally an arcade game. The game was never intended to be realistic beyond the surface of it. Akatombo (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A little late manSam ov the blue sand 00:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

How do I access the template at the bottom of the page? I would like to add something in there.Sam ov the blue sand 02:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ace_Combat Zaku Two 02:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well do you like what I've done?Sam ov the blue sand 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Combat 5 missions

In a recent edit it stated that AC5 had 27 missions in campaign mode, does this take into account the 3 alternate mission and mission 27+? I haven't played AC5 in a while but even on the box it says "Over 30 missions" and Arcade mode (which is practically a different game in itself) has over 15 different missions!

Please correct me if I'm wrong but that should probably be changed. Cbale2000 17:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then change it your self.Sam ov the blue sand 22:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

missing pictures

why were all images in this article removed? now it's just a horrible block of text. 72.198.34.128 00:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Aircraft Manufactuers

In the Ace Combat series do the planes (F-15, Su-37) etc. come from thier perspective countries (If Osea is an allegory to the U.S. so they own Boeing in the game?) Just a thought.75.163.189.63 15:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The aircraft don't come from countries per say, but the manufacturers mostly. This is implied in Ace 3 and Ace 5 in parts. That said though, just about every aircraft is flown by every nation (not quite, but almost), so as to how the manufacturers get around selling their products to their host nations as well as their enemies (the Su-37, F-22 et al are flown by both sides for example)has never been explained. (121.220.233.20 (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Aircraft list

There's a user going around removing all of the aircraft lists from the games' articles under the mistaken impression that such lists are "listcruft" when, in fact, they aren't. However, now is as good a time as any to create a unified page of all of the aircraft in the Ace Combat games. It should probably refrain from adding undue statistics (weapon loadout, special weapons, carrier-based, etc). I Imagine a table would probably work best. eg:

Aircraft Air Combat Ace Combat 2 Ace Combat 3 etc...
ADF-01 Falken x


Addendum: I've got a sandbox page going with just some ideas thrown in (particularly on how to cope with Ace Combat 5's ludicrous different-color=different-character syndrome. IdoAlphaOmega 05:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IdoAlphaOmega 04:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was me. I removed the lists as they were unimportant and indiscriminate. In an encyclopedia article, notable aspects of the subject should be written about, not listed, and I would encourage anyone to do so. Also due to the recent deletions of many such articles (with overwhelming concensus), including Aircraft of Ace Combat 3, I would advise against creating such a list again. Miremare 19:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is your problem? 50.75.39.166 (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fictional Aircraft page

What the hell!!!! Someone has completely screwed up the list of Ace Combat fictional aircraft page! Somebody please fix this!!!! :( Rogue Commander 04:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Aircraft

I know there has been a lot of work with consolidating all of the Ace Combat Ficitonal aircraft into one artical, but why do all of the links and redirects now go to a list of fictional aircraft which none of the Ace Combat aircraft are included in? Cbale2000 17:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind I fixed it, looks like someone got a bit confused. Cbale2000 17:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page rename

I think "List of Fictional Aircraft" needs to be renamed. Sombody get to that.Rogue Commander 04:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. I did it already.Rogue Commander 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Combat Wikia

http://acecombat.wikia.com

Yeah, its crap, I recently took over. Many of the articles have been copied and pasted from here, so I'm asking for you guys to help me out on this.

-- Buffalosoldier92 22:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been a while, and it has grown. It covers the Ace Combat universe in a comprehensive style, with 462 articles, compared to ACSWiki's 32. Still needs some articles, along with images, so if you can, please help! Also, I added links to the bottom of Ace Combat pages, so you have a place to look. -- Buffalosoldier92 (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ACS Wiki

I'm adding links to ACS' own wiki [1], which covers the entire series in a much more comprehensive manner than Wikipedia or the AC Wikia. The precedent of allowing links to unofficial wikis has been set by featured articles on games such as Final Fantasy, so please do not remove. ZakuTalk 23:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Aircraft page gone

Well it appears someone has gone and removed the fictional aircraft page. I find it amazing how decisions like this can be made by people that have not contributed to the topic at all the deletion discussion only lasts a few day. What I find even more interesting is the number of people that argue how fictional aircraft from a video game are unencyclopedic, yet apparently numerous fictional aircraft from movies are (Tie_fighter, FA-37_Talon, ect.). Whatever, I guess I'm just disappointed to see that someone seems to have an itchy finger near the delete button, these problems have been haunting this topic from the beginning. If these users were true wikipedians, they would work to improve articles that have issues, to make them conform to wikipdeia standards, instead of starting a witch hunt. Cbale2000 (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the only one with the sentiments. When the office blocked my Wiki access, I was itching to see what has happened. the next thing i know, that guy's slapping notability and AFD tags all over the articles (like what Combination did last year), though i caught the bit on transwikifying them. didn't we all talk about this in the category: AC talk page? --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Earth (Ace Combat)

It has been suggested that Earth (Ace Combat) be merged here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earth (Ace Combat) - Nabla (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - It has no notability on its own, and should have any useful information merged in here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Normally, I would agree with a merge in this situation, however, with what I have seen around this topic, in all likelihood someone would find an excuse to delete everything that was just merged shortly after the fact, essentially nullifying the Earth (Ace Combat) article as a whole, and leaving little, if any of the original content. Just my $0.02. Cbale2000 (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty accurate, but will likely happen at some point anyway if no notability is established. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support a merge. Someone ought to do it properly before someone comes around and does it badly, because this article is at risk due to its failure to satisfy wikipedia's notability guidelines. Randomran (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The locations used in the Ace Combat games should be on the same page under the "In-Game Geography" sub-section. There is no reason to have them separated into a different page. I vote for a merge. If we don't merge, the article may just be deleted, and putting together the geography of a fictional place is not a simple task. I'll work on a merge in the next 24 hours. And I'll make sure I do it correctly.ELement (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Simulator / Flight Shooter / Flight Action

In the overview of the game series, and each title should be edited to indicate the game is a flight shooter, not a flight simulator. The producer of the Ace Combat series has made it explicit in his interviews that Ace Combat is not, and not intended to be a flight simulator. I find this to be a minor, but still notable discrepancy in the English Wikipedia Article. The emphasis of the game design is based around the easy to play - high action design, setting aside questions of reality for enjoyability. This is the primary reason for the high number of missiles, the unlimited fuel, the lax flight physics, and the super powered aircraft. "Realistic enough to be exciting, but not enough to be annoying". Akatombo (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree mostly, besides the fact that the article should explain what it really is, not what its developers intended it to be. It is NOT (quote) "pseudo-realistic" as described originally. Planes fly forwards as opposed to backwards or sideways, and when you hit the ground you will blow up. Those are about the only "realistic" aspects of the game. Please do not misinform readers of the article, who may then get the false idea that this game somehow remotely translates the tiniest little bit to air combat.

Any trustworthy source, such as the fighter pilot and engineer community of F-16.net will agree, that this should be labeled as a flight shooter or flight action, and the word "realism" and "simulation" should not appear on the page at all. (I fully understand and support the original concept as an arcade shooter, but please don't say the word realism when talking about the series. At all.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.25.12 (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

The characters should already be covered within the main game articles, so I don't think anything will be merged here. If anyone can point out some recurring characters, one section for them would be appropriate. The very basic details of the nations can go into the settings section. TTN (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realy don't think there is any real need to merge this article into Ace Combat's main page. However, game articles do not cover characters, and those articles have little to no plot explanation, besides the basics. There is just no drive to merge here. We could split this article into game pages. This would keep us from having one single long article.74.193.217.105 (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think merging the nation sections into their respective articles is a very good idea. Firstly, most of the article seems to be either completely invented by fans (Belka's estimated as 505,000 km²; the nuclear blasts seem to have affected the nation's climate, etc.), or just rehashes of the plot which could be reconstructed within the game articles. Moreover, there is just not enough third-party information within the article to justify it. It would be great if there were reliable sources to confirm the obvious (Osea is a near-homophone of U.S.A., oh that's why they named it that!), but until then all we have is our interpretation of where the countries of this Strangereal world get their origins on Earth. --Hydrokinetics12 (talk) 03:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Ace Combat Earth.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The Ace Combat Earth.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AC:AH part of the main series?

I am sorry if I seem biased by numbers, but I was under the impression that AC:AH is part of the Joint Assault story line and is not a main part of the series. Putting it under AC:6 almost seems that it is AC:7 which I think is wrong. 199.123.122.242 (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linking United Galaxy Space Force series

A couple days ago, I linked the series name “United Galaxy Space Force” since a series encompassing multiple franchises seemed linkworthy. @Eaglestorm reverted on the grounds that there’s no article yet. Unless there’s a reason that we should never have a page about the series (which there very well may be, but please explain), there is no reason not to have it redlinked. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:REDLINK or some other page support avoiding this link? From my read, it supports including it. What’s the rationale for reverting? Communication would be helpful here, @Eaglestorm. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: I agree, there is nothing wrong with redlinks, as they encourage growth in the encyclopedia. I'm disturbed by the lack of @Eaglestorm:'s presence on this talk page. Eaglestorm, please come and provide your rationale for deleting the redlink. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are five game articles which reference "United Galaxy Space Force" on Wikipedia. Certainly, at the very least, it deserves a list article. There is no reason why a redlinked Wikilink can not be created; however, the expectation is that someone should create the associated article. If you are not willing to create the article, then perhaps you should not add the Wikilink. It's like pointing out a problem, but refusing to fix it. If you intend to create that article - add the link, and do so. ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I wouldn’t. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I did not mean to hint that you would not. I was trying to encourage you, and somehow managed to do the opposite. Please forgive the way I expressed it. Cheers - and Tally HO! ScrapIronIV (talk) 19:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understood; thanks for clarifying! —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve submitted a request for the article to be created, but the most I’ve found in English is forum threads discussing it. If the article is created, I’ll contribute as much as I can; but if it’s not, that line in this and other game articles should probably be deleted entirely. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, so after doing some research on Google and other search engines, I can't find anything except a handful of WP:QUESTIONABLE sites that even mentions "United Galaxy Space Force" which leads me to believe that redlinking to this falls under WP:WTAF and WP:REDNOT (¶1 Do not create red links to articles that are not likely to be created and retained in Wikipedia and topics that fail to meet the WP:GNG should not be redlinked to under this. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should UGSF even be mentioned here?

Since I haven’t been able to find any reliable sources backing up the unsourced claims that this and other games are part of UGSF, I’ve decided to remove these claims. Any objections? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rationales so far
For inclusion For removal
  • It’s verifiable by a reliable primary source (in Japanese) that AC3 is part of UGSF
  • It doesn’t need to be notable to mention in an article
  • It’s noteworthy enough that fan sources have discussed it at some length
  • It fails notability, and it’s not even noteworthy—it hasn’t been discussed in:
    • any English-language reliable source
    • any usable secondary source
    • more than one non-English primary source
  • It gives undue weight to a factoid about a single entry in the series

—174.141.182.82 (talk) (but feel free to edit yourself) 23:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, and looking at the history here - Didn't you initially wish to add the UGSF connection here, and now are reversing course? I am no expert on games, but I do know sources for such things disappear fairly quickly off the 'net for older games. ScrapIronIV (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wished to link the existing text, but upon further investigation, I wish to remove that text due to a lack of sources. (I’d flag it with {{cn}}, but figured a claim about 2011 should already be sourced four years later.) If an English-language source is found or a foreign (probably Japanese) source is translated, I’ll happily cite it here and in all related articles. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would suggest that you take the text that you wish to source, and put it into this discussion. We can return it to the article once an appropriate source has been found. ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere article includes a link which may prove useful here for this purpose. I am unable to access any gaming related sites from my current location to verify it myself. ScrapIronIV (talk) 16:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The text in question is:

In 2011, Namco retconned the Ace Combat series as the opening act of the United Galaxy Space Force series, an effort to combine all of the company's sci-fi game franchises into one long continuity. The other franchises include Galaxian, Ridge Racer, Star Luster, StarBlade, Bounty Hounds, and New Space Order.

And I’m unable to read Japanese and don’t trust machine translation in sourcing an encyclopedia, so I’m also unable to verify that source. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:12, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one of the individuals on this list[2] would be willing to assist you with that. ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh. Is there a noticeboard for them, or would we have to pick one and ask individually? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 17:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would pick one of the editors on that list who has been active recently, and politely ask for their help on their talk page. I know a few editors who speak japanese whom I would ask, if I had access to the page myself. This is actually one of the times that registering an account (I am merely encouraging you, not making any demands) does actually help. Editors get to know you, and you eventually build wiki-relationships over time. You also get to know who has certain skills, talents, and interests. But, I am off topic; the editors there are listed because they volunteered to help in these situations. ScrapIronIV (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve asked User:Mr. Stradivarius (ja-3) to verify the source on that paragraph. Please don’t reinsert the paragraph until it’s confirmed accurate. Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The source is kind of close to the claim made, but doesn't quite get there. It doesn't say that Ace Combat was the "opening act" of the UGSF series, but only mentions that Ace Combat 3 is included in it. (Actually, it says that Galaxian and Galaga were the first.) Also, it doesn't mention the year 2011. The rest is broadly correct, though, and the page does mention that some of the titles were retconned. Two other things also give me pause. First, if we take it at face value that the ugsf-series.com site is run by Namco-Bandai, then that means that it's a primary source. Second, if it's not actually run by Namco-Bandai, that might mean that we shouldn't be trusting it at all. (I can't find any links to it from the Namco-Bandai official site, although it may be that I'm being overly paranoid.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The domain is registered to a bandai.co.jp email address, so I think it’s safe to assume it’s official. Here’s a potential revised paragraph:

Ace Combat 3 is set within Namco's United Galaxy Space Force series, an effort to combine all of the company's science fictional game franchises into one long continuity. The other franchises include Galaxian, Ridge Racer, Star Luster, StarBlade, Bounty Hounds, and New Space Order.[1]

  1. ^ BANDAI NAMCO Games Inc. "UGSFシリーズ 公式サイト". Retrieved 28 April 2015.

So, consensus time: Should we leave out the claims because they’re verifiable only by one primary source, or should we include those verifiable parts? I vote for removal; nothing about the continuity seems to be notable (noteworthy, whatever) to anyone but fan forums and wikis. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone oppose removal? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator of an aforementioned fan wiki here. Reasons stated above do seem like solid grounds for removal of UGSF information from Wikipedia, especially due to WP:GNG which was mentioned as a cause for not creating the general article in the first place on the video game requests WikiProject. I support removal, but if such a time should arrive when UGSF does become noteworthy then this topic will have to be revived. ~SlyCooperFan1 22:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agreed on that last point. And I hope it does, honestly. It’s a neat idea, retconning everything together into a consistent universe. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I have come to agree that UGSF does not deserve its own article due to a lack of sources and notability, referencing it within the articles themselves is not a problem. An entry within an article does not need to meet WP:GNG - it must merely be sourced and verifiable. Scr★pIronIV 15:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that we have a severe lack of verifiable sources, especially due to a language barrier where the only official UGSF materials are in Japanese. So if UGSF does become noteworthy in the future, through some game or other release of some kind, we'll likely have an easier time adding those sources. For now, it's too difficult. ~SlyCooperFan1 21:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we currently have zero secondary sources for this, which are preferred over primary. I agree that this isn’t a matter of notability, but verifiability; and it rather fails at both. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another consideration: Are other games besides AC3 explicitly part of the UGSF continuity? Because there’s the question of WP:WEIGHT in an article lead about the franchise as a whole. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Negative. Ace Combat 3: Electrosphere is the only Ace Combat title explicitly mentioned to be a part of the UGSF continuity. ~SlyCooperFan1 23:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve removed the paragraph in favor of a mention in the table entry about the game (with the text: “The only science fiction-themed Ace Combat game, and the only one set within Namco's United Galaxy Space Force science fiction universe.[1]”). I believe this balances weight better, but I’m still not sure this article should mention it at all. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ace Combat. 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:

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) 22:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ace Combat. 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:

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) 04:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of the early arcade games in franchise history and timeline

Hi, I'm the guy who added Air Combat (arcade game) to the franchise timeline. I swear I'd done it a few months back, but when I came back to the page I saw it wasn't there. So, I'd just like to state my case.

While the Air Combat games might not be directly part of the Ace Combat series they deserve to be included on because of their direct influence on, and continuation into, the Ace Combat series. Like I said in my edit summary, this type of inclusion has precedent in that Donkey Kong (video game) is listed as the first game of Mario (franchise). Games in the Ace Combat series have made references to Air Combat and Air Combat 22 before.

I also include Mach Storm because takes a large majority of its assets from previous Ace Combat games. If it is too dubious for inclusion, I understand, but please do not remove Air Combat (arcade game) and Air Combat 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marisauna (talk • contribs) 03:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Air Combat and Air Combat 22 are not, I repeat, NOT, part of the Ace Combat franchise. The Ace Combat franchise is repeatedly shown to celebrate its anniversary on June 30, using 1995 as the starting year, which goes to the PS1 game, not the arcade games. See this tweet: https://twitter.com/PROJECT_ACES/status/1144990161685475328
Yes, they were developed by Namco, yes, they are obviously precursors, and yes, they deserve some mention, I agree with having them included in the prose as currently presented, but they should not be included in the franchise history timeline because they are NOT part of the franchise.
Also, please don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes. ~SlyCooperFan1 05:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shipped vs sold

Does it matter if we state that each game has shipped a certain number of copies as opposed to having sold a certain number of copies? By my understanding, the two are virtually synonymous in terms of following sales performance. See https://www.dualshockers.com/the-difference-between-shipped-and-sold-is-less-relevant-than-you-think/

It bears mentioning that Ace Combat 6, Assault Horizon, and Ace Combat 7 all say "sold" in their sources, whereas all the other games and the 14 million pre-AC7 total say "shipped" in their sources. ~SlyCooperFan1 12:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DualShockers is not considered a reliable source per WP:VG/S, so we shouldn't use that one at all. I don't think it really matters if they say "shipped" or "sold", since they're synonymous with each other. Even if you want to make the argument that they shipped 14 million games total to retailers and that doesn't define how many were sold, the Namco Bandai Games/Project Aces website even says "The cumulative worldwide sales of the popular home video game software "Ace Combat" series released by NAMCO BANDAI Games Inc. has exceeded 10 million units this year", which definitely sounds like that's how many it sold. Namcokid47 01:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to use DualShockers as a definitive source on the topic, just as a demonstrative to show that the difference between copies shipped and copies sold is negligible. There's plenty of other sources on this topic. I just don't want to end up in an edit war on this tiny point. ~SlyCooperFan1 19:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Air Combat arcade game

The Air Combat (arcade game) was blanked and redirected by User:Namcokid47 to List of Namco games last year, seemingly without establishing any kind of consensus for such a bold move. The reasoning given for such a move is that the game is "not notable" which I find absurd. Numerous reliable sources about the Ace Combat series recognize the arcade game Air Combat as the root of the series (even if Namco now consider the later PlayStation game to be the first entry of the series). Both the Air Combat 22 and Air Combat articles discuss the arcade game Air Combat, and credit the arcade game as the original source material for both games. The Game Machine and RePlay arcade charts for Japan and the US include the Air Combat arcade game as a chart-topper in 1993, while Funworld Magazine noted that it was still one of the top 20 arcade attractions four years later in 1997. Reliable sources like Edge, GameFan and Hardcore Gamer all noted that the Air Combat arcade game had advanced graphics and technology for its time, with GameFan even going as far as calling it the "best flight sim ever" (in 1993). How on Earth is any of this "not notable" enough? It might be helpful to hear some opinions from other editors about this issue. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I've moved some of the new material about the Air Combat arcade game to List of Namco games#Namco proprietary arcade systems. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Articles that fail to meet Wikipedia's policies on notability can be boldly redirected without having to garner consensus, as WP:BOLD puts it. I think your argument here is a misunderstanding of WP:GNG, since much of it is based on mentions or sources that do not offer any critical analysis. Let's go over each source on the page and see how many are useful and offer significant commentary.
  • 1: A brief mention in an article from Edge on a Namco retrospective. Not significant or independent from the parent topic.
  • 2: Two sentences on the game from GameFan. Better than the Edge source I suppose, but that is not significant coverage.
  • 3, 4, 5: Sales charts that don't offer anything useful outside "it was popular". Not significant, independent, or in-depth.
  • 6: A Metro review for a completely different game. Seriously?
  • 7: E3 preview for a different game that only mentions Air Combat in the beginning.
  • 8: Developer interview that is about the PlayStation game and not the arcade game. In addition to interviews not counting towards notability, it is also about a completely different game while using the arcade Air Combat in passing.
  • 9: Another interview from a primary source that is neither significant nor in-depth.

None of these sources actually talk about Air Combat independently from other games or topics. It fails WP:GNG which is why your attempts to overturn the redirect have been reverted. I spent some time combing through Archive.org and other magazine sites and most of my findings were just passing mentions. It simply doesn't have enough coverage to warrant an article at this time. I can see Air Combat 22 maybe having a page, there's more sources that talk about that game specifically than this, but nothing for this one. Namcokid47 19:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever I was going to add to the article, I've instead added it to List of Namco games#Namco proprietary arcade systems for now. I've since added several more sources covering the arcade game there, including an Electronic Gaming Monthly review article about the game as well as a Gamest award nomination. There are also several Japanese Gamest magazine articles about the game. I believe that should be enough to establish notability for an article, but you can have a look yourself and see if you agree. Maestro2016 (talk) 01:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved Air Combat 22 to Air Combat (series). Air Combat 22 is no more notable as an article than the original Air Combat. Most of the articles about Air Combat 22 discuss it in relation to the original arcade game. The Air Combat arcade game series is more notable, so it makes more sense to have an article about both games rather than just the sequel. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just randomly came across a brief review of Air Combat published by CVG in 1992. That makes at least two known English-language reviews of the game, along with the EGM review mentioned above, in addition to the early Gamest preview articles. That's at least several different review and preview articles about Air Combat, in addition to the numerous other articles mentioning the game. Along with the reasons I've previously given, this should now be more than enough coverage to establish WP:Notability. Maestro2016 (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just realized Namcokid47 is retired. If anyone else wants to join this discussion (or if Namcokid47 wants to come out of retirement), then feel free to drop a comment here. Maestro2016 (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ace_Combat&oldid=1146095854"