Talk:Eternal Daughter

This 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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the indie task force.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Cleanup

This article is almost entirely hyperbole, most of which is grammatically incorrect, with statements like:

It is known for its 100% fair yet painstakingly frustrating difficulty.
the game pays great attention to details, and has an equally captivating storyline
Altogether resulting in near professional potential, but lacking in polish.

Either remove these statements altogether, or fix the grammar and attribute them to notable sources. Luvcraft 17:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of attempting to eliminate the bias of this article, and to add some extra information about the game. It's my first major edit on Wikipedia, but I believe i've followed the editing guidelines properly. Strife 23:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further edits and additions

I've looked through the history of this article including its nomination for deletion. Since the decision was to keep it, I'm guessing I can make additions to it, including references. Also, since I'm still a beginner when it comes to contributing to Wikipedia (though I am an avid reader!), can I simply add to/edit the article or do I have to somehow "suggest" the new content to some kind of moderator first? I'm guessing any edit will be subject to review soon after it is made anyway, but as I'm still figuring out how to do things any help would be very appreciated. (Including of course pointing out where to read up and kindly telling me to go RTFM. :) )

Regarding references, if I add sources where (as far as I can deem) necessary, can I myself remove the (unreferenced) notice or does someone else have to? I'm guessing on the latter, but since I'm already yammering on I thought I might as well ask.

Again, thanks in advance for any and all help!

213.114.114.147 18:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One guideline of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Be bold - so just go ahead :) As for references, the unreferenced notice is related to Wikipedia:Reliable sources. So while (at least that's my personal understanding) primary sources (Wikipedia:No original research) are a good idea to specify in case they are being used, the base information of an article must come from secondary sources, and only then the article counts as referenced and the template can be removed (in which case whoever added those sources can do so themselves). But then, you shouldn't take all this by the letter, as one base policy (which is "higher" than a guideline) of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules :)
Oh, and you also might want to create a user account if possible, so if someone has questions/comments to what you edit they can use your talk page - IP accounts are usually too volatile for that. --Allefant 09:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another question, I need to clarify this source thing a little more, what needs to be referenced and what doesn't. I'm sorry if I'm beeing terribly noobish. Take these statements, for instance:

... similar to Super Metroid and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night.
... created by amateur developer Blackeye Software in 2002 ...
... one of the most well-known games in the Multimedia Fusion environment.

Do all of the above need to be (separately?) referenced by secondary sources? I can quite understand a statement such as the third would have to be backed up by some kind of source, but what about the others? Also, the term [Metroidvania], apparently common, might be appropriate to mention in the article. Perhaps in connection to describing the gameplay in detail so the reader can immediately get a basic idea of what it means if they haven't encountered it before. (Along with, of course, a Wiki link.)

213.114.114.147 19:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, was away from WP for a few days. I'm also just another editor here, so all I know is from the links I posted above. Basically, everything *should* be sourced. But also, can always use common sense. So like you say, the third claim definitely needs a source (and the game's or its authors' homepages do not count) - but an official MMF site saying it is the most well known would work I guess, as well as (always preferable) some actual secondary source like a game review or news article. The first claim probably also should be sourced, but I guess in that case, a weaker source like blog of a developer would be enough - they might exaggerate how well known their game is, but not describe it in a wrong way. --Allefant 10:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes, Changes

Okay. Now I feel like I've really been bold. And I can't say that I don't feel more than a little nervous. Anyway, here's the lowdown on what I've done:

I took the liberty of removing the Unreferenced tag, because I added source references wherever I deemed necessary. More on that in a bit.
I uploaded a new image, a screenshot of the title screen, and put that inside the infobox instead of the in-game screenshot which I moved down into the article itself.
I rewrote the first paragraph.
- Removed the part about Super Metroid and Symphony of the Night, because I mention that later on instead, in the Gameplay section.
- Mention Derek and Jon by name and establish that they used "Blackeye Software as a pseudonym in their games.
- State that it was in development for two years, sourced back to Derek's own homepage.
- I chose not to source either that the game was heavily anticipated or that it has become one of the most well-known games (...) because I reasoned that both would be apparent within the other references. I should say right now that I don't know if there is a way to re-use the same reference in more than one place, and if there is, I probably would've used it here. (Help?)
I completely redid the Gameplay section, describing the game mechanics a little more in detail. I also referenced that comparisons are made to Metroid and Castlevania, pointing to a blog review of the game. I tried to describe the gameplay in a concise and, well, dictionary-worthy manner. Hopefully I succeeded, if not, well, I'll just have to learn to do better next time. :) I read up on other game articles for inspiration and examples.
I added a separate Reception section. Boy, are there many references in here. Perhaps I overdid the referencing in my attempt to really nail that part, I don't think I can be a good judge of that myself at this point, I'm too new to this. I warmly welcome any suggestions to how I could, for example, move one or two references around if there are parts of the article where they could be used better. (Help?)
I added, of course, a References section.
I fixed the Cave Story article link to point directly to the article (which is aptly named "Cave Story") - "Doukutsu Monogatari" simply forwards to "Cave Story". I also removed the links to ED's pages on Home of the Underdogs and 1UP.com, respectively, reasoning that since I referenced them inside the article they didn't have to be in the External links section, but now I'm already starting to have second thoughts on that one. I'll wait for second opinions before I revert anything back, though, to hear what you people say as well. I also added a link to Jon Perry's homepage. No fair that Derek gets all the credit. :)
I also added another category, namely Fantasy video games.

So, how's all that? What did I do right, what did I do wrong? I'm very much still learning, but as User:Allefant encouraged me to jump right in, I did. I even created a user account for myself. Yes, I'm the same guy as 213.114.114.147. :) Now, I think that just about covers it... Enjoy - I hope. ^_^;

Withaknife 19:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I guess you could count as a model newcomer :) From what I see, your edits are a big improvement to the article, especially the reception section - I doubt someone would nominate it for deletion again now. I'm myself not a previous editor of this article, it only landed on my watchlist accidentally after the deletion nomination, but I'm quite sure other editors will agree :) All your points above sound reasonable (and very exemplary of you to list them). The number of references is good I'd say. In fact, the statement in the introduction and has become one of the most well-known games made using the Multimedia Fusion software could need a better reference (but it was like that before your rewrite, so unless someone contests it, I guess it can stay even without a better reference for now). You even added a fair use rationale to the image you uploaded, I'm impressed. Myself I didn't do nearly as well when I first wrote something in WP :) --Allefant 10:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thank you very much! I'm really glad that you approve of my edits to the article, because I worked on it for a couple of days to make sure it would work, and be consistent and professional. Reading other video game articles (especially very long ones like the one for Castlevania: Symphony of the Night inspired me and sort of set the level I wanted to aspire to, even though SotN is a modern classic and ED is "only" a homebrew title. Another reason I wanted to make a really good article about it is that I worked on this game as well (wrote music for it), so it's special for me I suppose. :) I hope that my personal involvement doesn't make me biased, I really tried to make the Reception part for instance fair and balanced.

About what you wrote further up (I'll reply to that here as well so as to not split things up too much), I suppose we'll just wait and see if people do think the "most well-known game" part is worded too strongly or should be removed entirely. If it is contested I'll see if I can find something to back it up, or otherwise rewrite or remove it. Now, I have a couple more questions that came to mind recently:

Should I add a Fair Use Rationale to the old ED screenshot as well, similar to the title screen?
How much is too much? Do you have any thought on what would be over the top to add to the article, I mean, considering also that it is a homebrew indie game as opposed to a big title like Castlevania. I just started replaying the game myself and I thought about taking notes while I'm playing and using them to expand the Story section with character bios, a plot summary without major spoilers (like Hume taking an arrow for Mia) and also an edited plotline including details like that. Or should I just leave it as it is?

Probably more questions will arise that I hope you (or someone else who decides to jump into the fray) won't mind answering. And don't worry about taking a few days to respond; there's life, and then there's Wikipedia. Usually in that order. ;)

--Withaknife 12:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the fair use rationale, I'd say yes. There's 100ds of 1000ds of pictures on WP, so it will take a while until a picture bot or admin notices it, but it will be deleted eventually the way it is now. Since we do not know where the current one is from (stolen from a website or selfmade screenshot), probably best would be to re-upload a new screenshot instead.

About the length, I'm not so sure myself. There is for example Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_or_textbook and Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information - and I have seen lists of monsters or items appearing in a game being removed a few times. But character bios, I really don't know - myself I wouldn't think it can hurt for the major characters, but if an admin who knows all Wikipedia policies comes along and removes them again, then I don't want to be blamed :)

All this now makes me want to download and play this game myself once I get home.. --Allefant 17:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless self promotion

No reason for this article to exist, no one knows that this game is. A google search comes up with this page and the creator's personal website. But apparently it was already proposed for deletion and somehow failed? Assuming it was stopped by the game's creator. 75.151.5.228 (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and for that reason I'm removing the notability issue.

To begin with, the article's topic is not mainly as a "product or service", given that it is a noncommercial game.

If notability is being discussed, Wikipedia:Notability should be the reference:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

Reviewing this article, there is definitely significant coverage in reliable independent sources in the form of game reviews; furthermore, Derek Yu is a well-known indie developer (he wasn't very well-known when this was released, but it still contributes), and this game was a significant project, which both explain the notability of the game. Google search results alone are not the criteria for notability. --E to the Pi times i (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any clear signs of self-promotion. The article could definitely use more sources, though, but that's usually true. Merging this with Derek Yu is also an option. Grayfell (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eternal Daughter. 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) 08:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]