Talk:Another Code: Two Memories

Move request

Move to Another Code: Two Memories since this is the English title? --Thorpe 16:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I own the game. The USA version is called Trace Memory. As far as I know, Another Code: Two Memories is the european name. -- ReyBrujo 03:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Another Code: TM isn't just the European title, it's the literal translation of the Japanese title. Geoff B 15:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Query: Since the European version was apparently translated more faithfully, and was released before the American version, then why is the main article on the American version? Wikepedia isn't an American encyclopedia, it's an English-speaking encyclopedia, and so surely the earliest-released English copy, especially if it's the most faithful, is the one that the article should be based on? (I know Wikipedia has a policy of using American English or British English throughout an article based on whichever it was first, but I'm not sure that can be extended to cover differences between versions of a game on two continents.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.115.148 (talk • contribs).

It is indifferent for me. If the main article is about the American version, it is because nobody from Europe cared to expand the differences between both versions. If the only difference is the game title, it is trivial. -- ReyBrujo 17:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Another

Why on Earth does "Another" redirect here?? Isn't that like redirecting "Super" to Super Mario World? -Branddobbe 08:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Another was one of the names the game was called by the press before the official titles Trace Memory and Another Code: Two Memories were announced. I supposed this is the reasoning here. Aapo Laitinen 09:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

A bit more info

This looks interesting. -- ReyBrujo 04:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be "Another Code: Two Memories"

Following the Dark Chronicle rule, this page should be called "Another Code: Two Memories". Dark Chronicle was named such because it was named Dark Chronicle in BOTH JAPAN AND EUROPE.

Shouldn't the same rule apply to this game? It was named "Another Code: Two Memories" in BOTH JAPAN AND EUROPE.

That's my argument. I hate inconsistency.

EDIT: ? You've changed "Dark Chronicle" to Dark Cloud 2! This ois crap! This isn't the "Totally American Encyclopedia!" Lordofallkobuns 08:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ironic. I was in charge of moving Dark Chronicle to Dark Cloud 2, but I also worked on moving Trace Memory to Another Code: Two Memories.

But not for the reason that it's both the Japanese and European name, but because it's both the most common English name and it was there FIRST. Dark Cloud 2 came out in the US first. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat ironic, yes. But as Another Code, it did come out in Europe (and, I believe, Australia) before it came out in the U.S. I won't argue with you about which is the most commonly-used English name, but it does seem that that's a biased criteria as America's likely to automatically come first under such terms. 217.42.64.91 08:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired of people very slowly revert-warring over this article's title. Please figure it out here first.
This bloody article has been moved twelve times.
MoS says it should stay at the first major contribution's style ("Trace Memory"), but it can also be moved if there's a strong consensus to do so. So please do that: Build consensus, THEN move.
I don't care where it's at, so long as it's by consensus. Bladestorm 18:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

When that's your only good argument, it's not a good argument. I think people have to also ask - why did the person call it Trace Memory in the first place? It's certainly not because of an overwhelming lead in popularity of noteriety, and it's not because of an early release. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, they just used whatever was most familiar to them. There's nothing wrong with that. (I could just as easily ask why nobody who knew it as "Another Code: Two Memories" wrote the article in the first place.) Bladestorm 18:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

May I also add that the original title was not Trace Memory? The first edit labelled it as "Another", and it eventually was called "Another Code". It was the act of someone changing the title from Another Code to Trace Memory, so logically, Another Code: Two Memories is the appropriate title. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I realize the article has had a couple other titles. Those versions were stubs. And neither of them was precisely the european title. (If they were, then there'd be a stronger case for that title)

But there's nothing in MoS for choosing an article title that more closely resembles an unofficial title. It has two official english titles. "Trace Memory" was the earliest used title. MoS says to use that title.

If you still want to change it, then I won't complain: If it's done with consensus. My primary "argument" is that people need to stop edit-warring without a proper discussion. Bladestorm 18:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh COME on. So you've gone from "earliest title is what we should use" to "let's just use the NA name for no reason at all now!". Another Code was used for the article before Trace Memory was - someone changed it to Trace Memory, so under your own logic, you should be fighting for Another Code: Two Memories, as it is the first title ever used besides Another, the tentative title for the game (all versions, including in NA). - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No. I've gone from "We should use the earliest significant contribution" to "We should use the earliest significant contribution". Frig, man. READ, then reply. I did point out that unofficial titles don't have much weight (that only legitimate titles should be considered), and that a similarity to an unofficial title doesn't particularly matter. That said, did you actually look at those earliest versions of the article? This isn't the first time I've told you this. It's been using "Trace Memory" since before it's earliest significant contribution.

Whether or not the unofficial titles would've had relevant is a moot point. Trace Memory is still the earliest significant contribution. I went to the trouble of going all the way back to the beginnings of the article before making an argument. I should hope you would have done the same. "Trace Memory" was the earliest significant version. "Trace Memory" was the most stable version. "Trace Memory" is the current consensus. If you want to have it moved BY CONSENSUS, then fine. More power to you. But stop misrepresenting me. Bladestorm 19:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And I declare all contributions before the usage of Trace Memory "significant". Show me one thing to explain how in the world you can declare that the first significant contribution came when someone renamed the article to Trace Memory. I have clearly verified that the earliest title used for this article was not only NOT Trace Memory, but was an official title. The article had an infobox before it became Trace Memory, it had a lead, it described the plot, it describes the gameplay, and has external links. Where do you get off arbitrarily declaring that the contributions weren't "significant" enough to be of any worth? I'm sure the people who wrote them would say "yeah, you're right, my contributions ARE of less worth". Would you also say "hey, the earlier editors may have used the Queen's English, but their contributions weren't significant enough to count!"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)First off, for the last time: READ FIRST, THEN COMMENT.
I clearly stated that "Trace Memory" precedes the first significant contribution. That's very different from, "the first significant contribution came when someone renamed the article to Trace Memory".
Before I address how I gauged the 'first significant contribution', let me first say this: Even if I'm wrong, you're then admitting that "Another Code: Two Memories" is the wrong title to use. Because, if you want to go with with the first title used, then that'd be "Another". Not, "Another Code". Not, "Another Code: Two Memories". Just, "Another". K? Just wanted to make that clear.
Now then...

• This is the first contribution. I do not consider this significant. (Though, if you disagree, then you must concede that it's an argument against, "Another Code: Two Memories". Note that neither provided title is an official english title.
• By this revision, it still only had a (small) paragraph of text, and was classified as a stub.
• By this version, it was starting to look cosmetically better. It still had only one small paragraph.
• By here, in addition to being still just a small paragraph (yes, I realize the first line is separated. But it's still just one paragraph), it has less information than one would find on the back of most gameboxes. Note, however, that it's listed as "Trace Memory". It is not a significant contribution, but it's already named "Trace Memory". Also notice that it's still listed as a stub. The fact that it was a 'stub' implicitly declares it an incomplete article.
• By here, it was getting a bit better, but was still incomplete, and still just a stub. Still, it was, again, already as "Trace Memory".
• THIS is, to me, the first candidate for a 'significant contribution'. This is the earliest that one could objectively declare it. Even then, it was still listed as a stub. So, if it had been changed to, "Another Code: Two Memories" by then, you'd still have an argument. It'd be weaker, since there's still clearly plenty of content there, but the 'stub' label would still give you a reasonable case.
• This is when the 'stub' label was removed. By now, it's clearly recognized as a significant contribution.

See what I'm getting at now?
The title, "Trace Memory" precedes and shares the first significant contribution. It's also the oldest official english language title of the article.
Again, if you can muster consensus for change, I still won't care. But I think I've pretty clearly established this first major contribution thing. Bladestorm 20:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, comment - MoS doesn't mention significance, and it doesn't discuss the quality of the contribution, only the contributor. And I see several major contributors who acknowledge the Another Code name. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)So then, you're saying the article should be titled simply, "Another"? Or arbitrarily discard the first version, to choose the title, "Another Code"? Because, even if one were to go with that logic, it still wouldn't support, "Another Code: Two Memories". Bladestorm 20:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice to know that you care more about Wikipedia being rabidly in favor of NA than truth. Brain Age didn't start as the title it's at now, but there CERTAINLY were significant contributions from major contributors when it was known as Brain Training for Adults. Stop flip flopping around. Another Code is short for Another Code: Two Memories - the fact that the original title - both for the game AND the article - lacked the subtitle is NO reason to arbitrarily decide to pass over it and use Trace Memory instead. And Another is a TENTATIVE title which led to the final title - sans subtitle. Seriously, if you really cared so much about the MoS, you wouldn't be trying to find loopholes for the sake of getting your preferred version. You are finding all these minor technicalities to oppose using a title whose usage is argued with YOUR argument - and legitimately this time. The video game started as Another, became Another Code, and then Nintendo of America decided to give it a different title, and then someone changed it for the reason that Trace Memory is the US title, not because it's the English title or the only title that can be used. In fact, the game was titled as Another Code: Two Memories at E3, so it is the original title in all regions - NoA just decided to be different. Get over it - your argument has died and revived as my argument. To salvage it, you just decided to shove down these little technicalities (loopholes and technicalities have no place in Wikipedia guidelines - weren't you and your cohorts at the Son Goku article arguing that WikiLawyering is bad? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Additional comment: Also, MoS is referring to the first major contributor of the article. Obviously, no policy favours treating one editor as being more important than another. That's why it doesn't say 'major editor'. Unless you meant something else? Bladestorm 20:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Buh? Well, the only way the "major contributor" thing matters is if you declare one editor to be lesser than the other. Also, where's the reason in moving the article in the first place? There was no stability issue - the user did what I did which you oppose, but without a valid reason (only that it was the US title). Also, note that there are no news articles on Google about Trace Memory, but "Another Code" +DS gets three. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I am through replying to personal attacks and hostile words.
If you remove things like, "Nice to know that you care more about Wikipedia being rabidly in favor of NA than truth" (which accuses me of profound bias, and a disinterest with truth, in addition to using a term like, 'rabidly'), accusations of trying to find 'loopholes', and references to other non-related articles (I've told you this before. I won't engage in that type of bickering), then I'll discuss the issue with you.
But I'm entirely through putting up with all these attacks, bad faith accusations, and tangents. Bladestorm 20:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So basically, only YOU can make accusations (such as me intentionally ignoring the MoS because I don't like it - been working on compiling any evidence of that even being true in the slightest sense)?

And you ARE trying to find loopholes. You always were discussing "the original title used", but when I show that Trace Memory isn't the original title used, you are adding conditions and making arbitrary judgement decisions on what qualifies the original title. All regions had the title as "Another Code: Two Memories" initially - that makes it the original title. People called it Another Code - it was not known as JUST Another Code at the time. Someone was using a short-hand version of the title, just like people did with Super Mario RPG and Disgaea. When it was known as Another Code: Two Memories, someone changed it from that title because the title he changed it to was the US title. By the fact that Trace Memory was NOT the first official, non-tentative title used shows that this guideline does not apply. I do not see how you can even begin to argue that Another Code is not the original title even though it was the first final title used in the article, and then someone decided to change a STABLE title, which you claim should not be done, and by that logic, you should be fighting for the original title which was completely stable - Another Code: Two Memories - and not the title that the article was changed to ONLY because it's the US title, and not because there were inaccuracies or instabilities with the original title. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I will not continue discussion of a subject that continues to include personal attacks or accusations of looking for loopholes.
I shall not be commenting further in here unless comments are deleted. I do not intend to delete attacks or insults for you, or force you to remove them, but I will not engage in a discussion that's turned into a boxing match. Note: Silence does not equal consensus in this subject. Bladestorm 20:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want anyone in this discussion that can accuse someone of acting in bad faith and then throw a fit over someone else doing the exact same thing - except with a little more intention than yours, which could only cause a flame war.

The article started out at Another. No one moved to Another Code: Two Memories, but that was the title at the time and the editors acknowledged it.

Fun now, though - I can use your claim against you. "Because the Manual of Style doesn't agree with him, he doesn't like it". And I can actually say that's true - you were supporting it until someone did a turnabout on you, and then you kept playing word games, trying to claim that this case is an exception to the rule, that the original title doesn't count in this one case. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently there's consensus in at least one other article for using the name used in the most regions; since, of the three regions listed, Another Code: Two Memories is the title in two of them (quite aside from all the other arguments that have come before), this suggests that AC:TM should be the article title. Just putting this down here in case the article naming dispute is revived. You guys seriously need to come up with a proper policy on this - something like "translation used in the first English-language release," or some kind of check-box test. 86.136.156.205 (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Move protection

This article has been renamed at least twelve times due to dispute of the proper English title of the game, so I've locked move permissions for now. When the editors have come to a consensus regarding the naming of the article, please contact WP:RFPP to have move permissions unlocked (if needed).

Please note that if I've protected the wrong title of the page, The Wrong Version may apply. Page protection does not endorse any particular version of the page. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)